Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE

Pensions

Sir B. Rhys Williams: asked the Minister for the Civil Service what study he has made of the changes in law affecting the provision of retirement benefits in public and private occupational pension schemes which will be needed to remove obstacles to free movement into and out of the Civil Service.

The Paymaster-General (Mrs. Judith Hart): The Government's intention to legislate to preserve occupational pension rights generally was stated in Chapter 6 of the White Paper on National Superannuation and Social Insurance (Cmnd. 3883), and the consequential changes needed in the Civil Service scheme will be considered during the current review of it. This should go far to removing obstacles to movement into and out of the Civil Service.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: Do the Government accept that there is no way of making public sector schemes compatible with private sector schemes unless all private sector schemes are allowed to give lump sum options on retirement?

Mrs. Hart: I could not wholly accept this. Indeed, our proposals for preservation should make a great deal of difference to the freedom of people to move in and out. However, I think that the Government would be ill-advised to move in an ad hoc way on this point in advance of the review.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a further statement as to the review of Civil Service pension arrangements which he is undertaking in the context of the Government's proposals for national superannuation.

Mrs. Hart: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me an opportunity to clarify a reply I gave to a supplementary question he asked on 28th April. There is no intention of altering benefits earned by service in the existing Civil Service scheme up to the date on which any revised scheme is introduced. But changes in the present terms for service thereafter may well be necessary in order to take account of the greatly increased benefits that will be payable under our new earnings-related scheme. This matter will be fully considered during the review to which the right hon. Gentleman refers.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I thank the right hon. Lady for clearing up what was a wholly inadvertent slip in reply to a supplementary question. Is she aware, in respect of the Civil Service itself, that the possession of a non-contributory pension earned throughout life is a matter of very great importance, and will she defend the rights of the Service against having to sacrifice that in return for an expensive contributory scheme?

Mrs. Hart: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks. I think that two points should be made clear. First, the White Paper itself makes very clear the context of the review that is taking place. Second, there is a difference between reserved rights and accrued rights. The staff side has been given a complete assurance that the Government do not intend to alter the benefits afforded by service in the past, but when we come to consider the new scheme there are a number of things which must be looked at together, and it is this review which is of the greatest importance to all those members of the Civil Service.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Broadening the Question a little, does the right hon. Lady not recognise that this would be a good opportunity to re-examine the question of the notional funding of Civil Service pensions so that the true cost of the pensions can fall in the year in which the service is actually incurred?

Mrs. Hart: The whole question of the eventual arrangements for pensions for the Civil Service looked at in the light of the new superannuation proposals of the Government must be seen in the context of the whole of the White Paper and its attitude to funding. I cannot think that it would be sensible to regard it separately.

Private Schools (Fees)

Mr. Christopher Price: asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will ensure that those Government Departments which pay the fees of children at private schools do so at the same rate.

Mrs. Hart: Boarding school allowances are paid at the same rates except to the staff of the Diplomatic Service for whom the 1964 Plowden Committee on Representational Services Overseas recommended higher rates on the ground that

the nature of their careers warranted special treatment. Allowances towards the cost of private day school fees overseas are paid at the same rates for all children.

Mr. Price: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this £5½ million a year of rather dubious public expenditure needs criticising rather closely to find out whether it is being spent in schools which co-operate? Will she explain a little more clearly why the Diplomatic Service needs to be remunerated at a rate which is nearly twice as generous as that, for instance, for members of the Armed Forces?

Mrs. Hart: On the second part of my hon. Friend's question, the point is that the Armed Forces and most home civil servants overseas serve in places where schools are provided by the Ministry of Defence, whereas members of the Diplomatic Service have no choice but to send their children to boarding schools in this country if they are to be educated under the British system.
On the first point, as with all other Government expenditure, there is very careful scrutiny of the items expended.

Sir G. Nabarro: Will the right hon. Lady bear in mind that the only boarding facilities generally available in this country are at private fee-paying schools, and that those private fee-paying schools contributed approximately £40 million to our balance of payments last year?

Mrs. Hart: Indeed, knowing, as he does, of volume 1 of the Newsom Public Schools Commission the hon. Gentleman, I am sure, will be aware of a number of considerations affecting this matter.

Ministers' Decisions (Authority of Permanent Secretaries)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a statement as to the circumstances in which, under the regulations now operating in the Civil Service, Permanent Secretaries have authority to overrule the decisions of Ministers.

Mrs. Hart: I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the Answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 20th May to the hon. Member for


Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan).—[Vol. 784, c. 65–6.]

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does it follow that if a Minister wishes to get out of a pledge given upstairs, there are better ways of doing it than trying to hide behind his civil servant?

Mrs. Hart: I should think that nobody was more familiar with the convention governing this matter than the right hon. Gentleman. I am sure that he is well aware that neither Ministers nor civil servants are above the law. Indeed, he would be the last person to wish to change that.

Senior Policy Advisers

Mr. David Howell: asked the Minister for the Civil Service (1) how many senior policy advisers have now been appointed to Departments in accordance with the recommendations of the Fulton Committee;
(2) which departmental Ministers have now set up planning units, to advise them on long-term policy on the lines laid down in the Fulton Committee Report.

Mr. Sheldon: asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a statement on the appointment of senior policy advisers.

Mrs. Hart: No posts with the title of policy adviser have been created since the report but many Departments have one or more senior officers with a recognised responsibility for advising on future policy. Seven major Departments, a list of which I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT, have central planning machinery on the lines set out in the Fulton Report, and it is being developed elsewhere. Many other Departments have specialised and, in some cases, highly developed planning machinery but on different lines suited to their own needs.

Mr. Howell: Was not that innovation one of the central and more radical propositions in the Fulton Committee's Report which the Prime Minister accepted in this House? In any case, is not the question of long-term policy, from the point of view of the Government, one of the highest priority? Would it not be right to say that one of the things of which the Government are most urgently in need is some indication of the right direction in which to go beyond next week?

Mrs. Hart: The Committee recommended that there should be a re-alignment within Departments of the present method by which Ministers receive advice in terms of long-term policy, and I think that what the hon. Gentleman recognises—because I have answered Questions on this in the House a number of times—is that many Departments are now considering their own detailed needs in the light of Fulton, but it is a little too early for a total and clear general picture to emerge.

Mr. Sheldon: While not asking for a general picture, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether she accepts that there is room for experimentation? One is not asking for senior policy advisers to be established in every Department, but at any rate a start could be made, and will my right hon. Friend take note of that?

Mrs. Hart: Yes, Sir. As I am sure my hon. Friend with his great knowledge of these matters knows, what happens now is that Ministers have direct access to senior officials concerned with future policy. This was a fundamental of the Fulton recommendation, but certainly I take note with great seriousness of what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Higgins: In the light of the Minister's answer, is it not clear that what is happening is nothing? Is it proposed to set up senior policy advisers, or not?

Mrs. Hart: It is not the case that nothing is happening. We are moving very rapidly on some of the Fulton recommendations. Others are bound to take more time. In relation to some of the other questions which the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. David Howell) asked me, things are already happening. Planning units are already being set up in a number of Ministries.

Following is the list:

Board of Customs and Excise.
Ministry of Defence.
Department of Education and Science.
Department of Employment and Productivity.
Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
Board of Inland Revenue.
Ministry of Power.

Management by Objective

Mr. Sheldon: asked the Minister for the Civil Service what steps he has taken to introduce the principle of management by objective into the Civil Service.

Mrs. Hart: A system of management by objectives has been introduced in one area of the Ministry of Defence, and three other projects have been started. The subject is included in central and departmental training programmes, and a special training course for practitioners will start in the autumn.

Mr. Sheldon: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on that very encouraging reply. May I ask whether she has studied the booklet published by Centre for Administrative Studies which shows how the scheme can be extended into a number of other Departments?

Mrs. Hart: Yes, Sir. I have seen it, and with great interest. I assure my hon. Friend that pilot schemes will continue to be mounted to the maximum extent that available resources permit. We are very anxious to pursue this.

Mr. David Howell: Will the right hon. Lady accept that to some of us that reply is not at all that encouraging? Is she aware that the key to management by objective is the employment of more qualified people, particularly accountants, in the Civil Service to identify and cost objectives? How many more accountants have been employed by the Civil Service in recent months?

Mrs. Hart: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave last time I was subjected to Questions, because that gave the full details of the information that he requires. What I think hon. Gentlemen opposite accept and realise is that if we are to make a good job of implementing Fulton it must be done with the greatest care and in a way which ensures that no mistakes are made along the road. To some extent that is compatible with speed, to some extent it is not.

Oral Answers to Questions — PAYMASTER-GENERAL

Local, Regional and National Government

Mr. Ogden: asked the Paymaster-General if she will hold consultations with local, regional and national authorities to ascertain what difficulties prevent responsible persons from taking an active part in local, regional or national government.

Mrs. Hart: No, Sir. As my hon. Friend is aware, the Report of the

Redcliffe-Maud Commission considers this question in some depth, and we shall now be considering its conclusions about them.

Mr. Ogden: Are not some of my right hon. Friend's duties concerned with participation at all levels? Will she give an assurance that, in seeking to provide some solution to this phased participation, she will not be misled into thinking that all those who object to Government decisions, either locally or nationally, are ready to take part in the sometimes irksome duties of Government?

Mrs. Hart: Yes, indeed. When we come to consider in depth the conclusions of the Redcliffe-Maud Commission, the whole question of how we can best increase direct democracy at grass roots level is bound to occur, and certainly to me.

Mr. Ogden: asked the Paymaster-General what consideration she has given, and what proposals she has made, to ensure that Members of Parliament can take a more effective part in local and regional government.

Mrs. Hart: I shall be glad to consider, together with my right hon. Friends, any particular proposals my hon. Friend has in mind.

Mr. Ogden: Will the scope of the Parliamentary year fall within these considerations and, indeed, the difficulties experienced by many Members of Parliament of taking an effective part in their constituencies by having to spend five days a week trapesing through the Lobby in this House?

Mrs. Hart: I think that my hon. Friend will agree that there are two views about this. It is very much a matter for hon. Members to consider where the balance of advantage lies in terms of time in the House of Commons and time in their constituencies, particularly in relation to the structure of local government which emerges following the Redcliffe-Maud consultations?

Sir Knox Cunningham: Would it not be wise if hon. Members opposite who do not want to go through the Lobby were encouraged to carry out their desires, and then we should have a completely new and a good Government?

Mrs. Hart: Perhaps the need to go through the Lobby so frequently would not arise if the Opposition were not somewhat confused in their own mind.

Mr. Milne: Getting back to the serious aspect of the question, is my right hon. Friend aware that with the enlarging of local authority units on the basis of the report, and on the question of closer participation of people, there is a great deal of merit in this question, and will she look at the matter more closely, because if democracy is to exist in a situation of that kind a greater interlocking of Parliamentary and local government is required?

Mrs. Hart: I hope that nothing I have said indicates that we are not prepared to look at this very closely. What I was saying was that we need to see what eventual structure emerges for local government, and then there will be a number of questions, not merely for the Government, but for hon. Members, to consider.

Submission of Evidence

Mr. Gordon Campbell: asked the Paymaster-General what consultations she has had with the Commission on the Constitution regarding the submission of evidence.

Mrs. Hart: None, Sir. The Corn-mission has announced its readiness to receive evidence from all who wish to submit it, and no doubt those concerned are now proceeding accordingly. The submission of written evidence from Government Departments has already begun.

Mr. Campbell: Have the Government offered to provide factual and statistical information to the Commission, and does the Paymaster-General herself, in her devolution rôle, propose to offer any other evidence to the Commission?

Mrs. Hart: As I said, the submission of written evidence from Government Departments has begun, and it consists entirely of factual descriptions of existing functions of the Departments and of their structure so far as these are relevant to the matters of the Commission is considering. It is a little too early to say anything about the submission of evidence by Ministers.

Mr. Dalyell: Will the Government's evidence be made available in the Library?

Mrs. Hart: I am prepared to consider that, but so far we have not reached the stage of assuming that this naturally followed.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

Seychelles (Mahê Airstrip)

Sir E. Errington: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he is aware that, as the result of the building of the airstrip at Mahé in the Seychelles, a number of householders have had their homes compulsorily acquired with inadequate compensation resulting in their inability to find alternative accommodation; and if he will take steps to help in these circumstances.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. William Whitlock): Compensation for the acquisition of land required for the airport was carefully assessed in each case, and all owners had the opportunity of recourse to a statutory arbitration board. Compulsory acquisition notices were served on 59 property owners. Eighteen accepted compensation without dispute, one case has been decided by the board, and 23 others have been settled by amicable agreement. There are special circumstances in the outstanding cases, and they will be decided by the arbitration board.
The Governor has assured my right hon. Friend that the maximum possible assistance was given to those who had to move from their homes.

Sir E. Errington: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the local island government has denied any legal obligation at all to rehouse, and, in the case of Pointe la Rue, has he heard that families are living in the open under rocks, and in some cases in business premises?

Mr. Whitlock: My information is that all those families who required assistance and resettlement were given it in the form of free transport, free labour, and, in most cases, free material to enable them to move their houses, while those tenants


who did not receive compensation and those families who had been unable to make alternative plans were settled on Government housing estates. Many of the families have been living in this accommodation for as long as six or seven months rent free, but permanent resettlement arrangements are being implemented as rapidly as circumstances permit.

Seychelles (Fisheries)

Sir E. Errington: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he is aware of the difficulties of the Seychelles in relation to fisheries due to the encroachment by large foreign trawlers and the absence of modern cold storage facilities; and if he will take steps to assist the islanders to protect and improve their fishing industry, in view of its importance to their standard of living.

Mr. Whitlock: Yes, Sir. As to assistance, we are exploring what additional measures are required. The Seychelles Government are already preparing schemes for the construction of a cold store for fish in Victoria and the purchase and operation of a long range fishing boat to act as an escort vessel to smaller boats and to supply fish to the cold store.

Sir E. Errington: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Japanese have a large mother ship with many small trawlers around the Seychelles and that crews from those ships go ashore and buy the things which are badly needed by the islanders? Will he make arrangements for the islanders to have some proportion of the cash, as he will know that fish is the main source of protein for the islanders? Finally, will he help the establishment of an up-to-date cold storage?

Mr. Whitlock: As I have said, there are plans for an up-to-date cold store, and, in view of the urgent need for a regular supply of fish to the Seychelles, the Governor is reviewing this and all means of helping the fishing industry. As to foreign trawlers, the United Kingdom delegation to the F.A.O. Commission on Fisheries Bodies is aware of the problem which could be created for the Seychelles by the operation of foreign ships, but I understand that the presence of large

foreign vessels have not so far affected the Seychelles fishing industry since its boats are small and not capable of a very long range.

Mr. Evelyn King: Would the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the undesirability of these islands becoming wholly dependent on tourism, which the construction of the air strip may well assist, and that it becomes the more necessary to assist indigenous industries?

Mr. Whitlock: This is very well known to the Government.

Anguilla

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will now publish a White Paper on the Anguilla operation.

Mr. Whitlock: No, Sir.

Mr. Marten: As the allegations of murder, arson and significant gun running have now all proved, through answers from the hon. Gentleman himself, to have been totally misleading, is it not time that the Government should bare their breasts and publish a White Paper about the whole of the Anguilla operation?

Mr. Whitlock: On 23rd April my right hon. Friend undertook to consider giving more detailed information and in what form that might be given, but he later suggested that the information given to the House was adequate. He said on 5th May that he did not find the amount of fresh argument for a White Paper very impressive.

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on Anguilla.

Mr. Cordle: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a further statement on Anguilla.

Mr. Whitlock: I have nothing to add to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) on 23rd May.—[Vol. 784, c. 152–3.]

Mr. Marten: But in that reply the island of Anguilla was referred to as


part of the Unitary State of St. Kitts, Nevis and Anguilla. How does that square with the hon. Gentleman's undertaking when he arrived in Anguilla that the islanders should not live under an administration which they did not like? Can this double talk be cleared up now once and for all?

Mr. Whitlock: This is quite clear. Anguilla is legally and constitutionally still part of the State of St. Kitts, Nevis and Anguilla.

Mr. Cordle: When are the new elections likely to take place on the island?

Mr. Whitlock: It is too early to be definite about this. An advisory council has been established and is functioning very well.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The hon. Member has said that the information given to the House by the Foreign Secretary was, in the Foreign Secretary's opinion, adequate, but the trouble is that it was not accurate. Will he therefore accede to my hon. Friend's request and to the request of this side of the House that we should have the accurate information? The House is due this after the statements made by the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Whitlock: It is evident from all the information given to the House that not even the most rudimentary lawful agency for the enforcement of law and order existed on the island. There was a legal vacuum which caused the whole of the Caribbean great concern. In those circumstances, Her Majesty's Government took the action that they did.

West Irian

Mr. Hooley: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he is satisfied with the progress being made by the United Nations representative in arranging for the act of free choice in West Irian.

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made by the United Nations representative in making arrangements for the act of free choice in West Irian; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Goronwy Roberts): As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State explained in reply to the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) on 24th March, the arrangements for the act of free choice in West Irian are the responsibility of the Government of Indonesia. In due course, the United Nations Secretary-General is to report to the General Assembly on the arrangements which are made.—[Vol. 780, c. 200–1.]

Mr. Hooley: But would my right hon. Friend not agree that this was and still is an important experiment under the aegis of the United Nations in transferring a colonial territory from its former status either to independence or to becoming part of another State? Are the Government entirely satisfied that the United Nations is exercising its authority to the fullest and most helpful extent possible?

Mr. Roberts: The arrangements which the United Nations approved and to which we were party, with other members of the organisation, were that the two Governments concerned—those of Indonesia and the Netherlands—should come together to arrange for an act of free choice. The Secretary-General was then asked to advise, assist and participate in the preparation of this act and its operation. He will in due course be reporting, in the sense that my hon. Friend has asked this afternoon, to the General Assembly; at that point, no doubt, we shall have our own comments to make, if necessary.

Mr. Dalyell: In the meantime, may we have an assurance that the Foreign Office will resist following the lead of the Press in jumping to the conclusion that the West Irianese rebels are in the right and that the Indonesian Government in Djakarta are necessarily wrong?

Mr. Roberts: I see no evidence to lead one to suppose that there is any doubt about the position in West Irian. In any case, the Secretary-General's representative is at present on the ground and has been there since August 1968. If there were any doubts about the position or the good intentions of the Indonesian Government in this matter, no doubt he would have reported to the Secretary-General before now.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Did not President Sukarno say that Indonesia would not allow the right of free choice to be exercised? What is the attitude of General Suharto? Is it not clear that these people are not Indonesians but Melanesians?

Mr. Roberts: Nevertheless, preparations for the act of free choice are going ahead in conditions which are suitable for this territory. We have no involvement in, no commitment to, no responsibility for this territory, but we do stand ready to act on any reports which the Secretary-General makes on the preparations and the operation of the act.

European Security Conference (Finland's Invitation)

Mr. Luard: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reply he has made to the communication from the Finnish Government on the subject of a European Security Conference.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: As yet, none, Sir.

Mr. Luard: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the past the Foreign Secretary has suggested that events in Czechoslovakia would make it difficult for us to reply affirmatively to a proposal of this kind? Would he not agree that those events make it all the more necessary for a meeting of this kind to take place? Would not such a conference provide a perfect opportunity for our Government and others in the West to make clear the deep concern which we feel about the events in Czchoslovakia and, therefore, to give support to those in East Europe to feel a similar concern?

Mr. Roberts: It would be generally agreed, I think, that there was a certain movement towards détente before the invasion of Czechoslovakia. It would be even more generally agreed that that act inhibited and put a stop to a very promising movement towards détente. However, despite our repeated and consistent condemnation of that act of international bad faith, we have, through N.A.T.O. and otherwise, shown our readiness to consider, indeed to welcome, a conference, given certain essential pre-conditions upon which I think everyone in the House would agree—some preparation, some

likelihood that the main problems would be constructively examined, and also the participation of our Atlantic allies in the conference.

Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. In view of the importance of some of the Questions that are being asked this afternoon, is it not a contempt of the House for the Foreign Secretary to absent himself? May I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that only last Thursday, at Business Question Time, the Leader of the House informed hon. Members that the right hon. Gentleman would be present today to make a statement on the Middle East? What is the position?

Mr. Speaker: The position is that the right hon. Gentleman may criticise a Minister for his absence, but Mr. Speaker cannot compel a Minister to be here.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Would the Minister assure us that in the event of any negotiations taking place, all our N.A.T.O. allies, including North America, will be included?

Mr. Roberts: Yes, Sir. That is a necessary pre-condition of our agreement to such a conference.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: In preparing the answer which the Government make to this Finnish invitation, will the Minister bear in mind that this may be an opportunity not only for expressing what we feel about Czechoslovakia but also for endeavouring to set Europe and the world on a new course, which is all the more urgent in view of what happened in Czechoslovakia?

Mr. Roberts: Certainly, and it was in that spirit that we welcomed the Finnish initiative.

Indonesia (Seized British Assets)

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress he has made in negotiating compensation terms for British assets seized in Indonesia: and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Whitlock: In April the Indonesian Government reaffirmed their intention to give compensation to the owners of foreign enterprises who do not wish to take repossession.
Her Majesty's Government have advised all companies known to be concerned to resubmit fresh applications in the required form, even if their claims have already been lodged. Her Majesty's Government will continue to help whenever required.

Mr. Taylor: For how long have these negotiations been proceeding? What plans have the Government for believing that compensation will eventually be given and be satisfactory?

Mr. Whitlock: The Indonesian Government's first concern was to reach agreement with those companies wishing to resume their operations in Indonesia. The agreements were concluded with most companies in that respect last year. The complexity of the issues and the desirability of reaching a settlement by agreement naturally militate against a hurried conclusion of the outstanding claims for compensation.

Mr. Dalyell: Would my hon. Friend confirm that these negotiations have been conducted with urgency and good will?

Mr. Whitlock: They are being conducted with good will and all possible urgency.

Gibraltar

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the present situation in Gibraltar.

Mr. Colin Jackson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on the situation in Gibraltar.

Mr. Whitlock: The situation in Gibraltar remains calm. Everyone is co-operating to ensure that the life of the comunity goes on with as little disturbance as possible. The people of Gibraltar are adapting themselves admirably and with characteristic resourcefulness to meet the new situation.
In the view of Her Majesty's Government, the latest Spanish move is a wholly unproductive one likely to postpone still further any solution to the Gibraltar problem.

Mr. Taylor: In view of the appalling restrictions which have been imposed, will Her Majesty's Government make a point of reminding the Spanish Government of the massive contribution which was made to Spain's economy by the 1¼ million British tourists who visited Spain last year? Will they also remind the Spanish Government that a policy of economic sanctions can never undermine the spirit of a proud and independent people?

Mr. Whitlock: All those points have been very strongly made to the Spanish Government on repeated occasions.

Mr. Jackson: What immediate arrangements have been made to ensure the smooth functioning of the dockyard following the withdrawal of Spanish labour? What request, if any, has been made by the Gibraltar Government for help for the construction trade in respect of the hotel industry?

Mr. Whitlock: My hon. Friend's supplementary question about the dockyard should really be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, but I understand that there is most certainly no intention of closing the dockyard or of altering its present programme. The tourist industry is being developed as speedily as possible.

Mr. Braine: Is it not a fact that more than a year ago, in the face of mounting pressure from Spain, the then Commonwealth Secretary made a promise, on the soil of Gibraltar, that a survey of manpower requirements would be put in hand? Why was the report of that survey put in the hands of the Governor only a few days ago, after the Spaniards had closed the frontier and withdrawn Spanish labour?

Mr. Whitlock: As the hon. Gentleman said, the report of the Beeching Mission on Gibraltar's manpower requirements has now been presented to the Governor. As the Governor said last week, the withdrawal of the Spanish labour force adds increased urgency to the problem of the reorganisation and redeployment of Gibraltar's manpower. However, it will be some time, remembering that the report deals with complex manpower planning matters, before any statement on its recommendations can be made.

Mr. Braine: May I press the point, since the hon. Gentleman has completely evaded the issue? Is it not clear that in the face of pressure that was predictable this report should have been in the hands of the Gibraltarian authorities a considerable time ago? Why was not this report presented to the Governor until after the Spaniards had taken action which led to the withdrawal of Spanish labour?

Mr. Whitlock: That question should be directed to the Beeching Mission—[Interruption.]—which has only now produced its report. Contingency plans for possible eventualities have been in existence for a considerable time.

Mr. George Jeger: Is my hon. Friend aware that a number of Ministers are concerned with the affairs of Gibraltar? He referred to the Minister of Defence regarding the dockyard, and he will no doubt refer to the President of the Board of Trade in connection with flights to and from Gibraltar. Should not one Minister be co-ordinating the activities of the Government, to whom we could address our Questions, so that the Minister of Public Building and Works would not have been put in the position of going to Gibraltar two days before the frontier was closed and saying that the Spaniards would not withdraw their labour?

Mr. Whitlock: I should have thought that the varying responsibilities of Ministers were well understood.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Is the Minister aware that what the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) said is absolutely right, that we need the Foreign Secretary here to answer these Questions? Is he also aware that what he has told the House so far amounts to absolutely nothing? How many men and women have been sent out to assist with the problems of Gibraltar?

Mr. Whitlock: As my right hon. Friend has said, we will sustain the Gibraltarians in any situation which faces them, and that pledge will be kept.

Security Council's Resolution

Mr. Luard: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which were the provisions of the Security Council's resolution of 20th

March which caused the British delegate to abstain.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: We abstained because of our doubts about the legality of the General Assembly's action in purporting to terminate the mandate and assume direct responsibility for South-West Africa. Moreover, this resolution was designed to pave the way for comprehensive mandatory economic sanctions against South Africa under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, which we consider would be neither practicable nor likely to lead to a solution of this problem.

Mr. Luard: Whatever legalistic reasons may be found for our vote on that occasion, would not my right hon. Friend agree that in the eyes of the world it appears to have been a defence of South Africa's position in South-West Africa? Is it not highly undesirable, especially in view of our long-standing relations with other countries in Africa, that we should appear in this light, in common with only one other member of the United Nations?

Mr. Roberts: Anybody who heard, or has since read, the detailed statement made by our representative at the United Nations, Lord Caradon, will not have any difficulty in understanding precisely where the United Kingdom stands on this very difficult matter. I am sure that in Africa and Asia, as well as in Europe and America, the position is fully understood following that statement.

Nassau Agreement

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has now been made in preparation for the renegotiation of the Nassau Agreement.

Mr. Whitlock: I would refer my hon. Friend to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) on 30th January.—[Vol. 776, c. 1520–21]

Mr. Jenkins: Is it not the case that in 1964 the Labour Party's election manifesto said—and this was to be Government policy—that it was proposed to renegotiate the Nassau Agreement? As five years have elapsed, will my hon. Friend now at least undertake that the proposal will be made?

Mr. Whitlock: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on 30th June, our intention, at the appropriate time, is to carry through the renegotiation. The President of the United States was so informed by my right hon. Friend in 1967. The timing of the renegotiation depends on various matters—for example, the state of the discussion in N.A.T.O. on nuclear matters, and other factors that would be conditioned by the circumstances of the time.

Mr. Marten: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is that sort of statement which makes everybody distrust the present Government?

Mr. Paget: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Prime Minister explained to the House that what he meant by "renegotiation" was "denegotiation"? Has anything happened about de-negotiating the Nassau Agreement?

Mr. Whitlock: As I have indicated, when the right time comes and when conditions are appropriate, we intend to carry through this renegotiation.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Is not the position that before the 1964 General Election the Prime Minister rejected the Polaris submarine and that just before the next General Election he will be claiming it as his own?

Mr. Jenkins: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, and as a protest at the absence of the Foreign Secretary, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Notice must be given in the conventional form.

Herr Franz-Josef Strauss (Talks)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his talks in London with Herr Strauss.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: My right hon. Friend had the opportunity for a talk with Herr Strauss when he visited London last month and addressed the European Atlantic Group. Their talk was confidential.

Mr. Allaun: Did not Herr Strauss advocate a separate European nuclear force? Is not that ultimate objective of

West Germany—getting nuclear participation—an extremely dangerous one?

Mr. Roberts: There have been fairly full reports of what Herr Strauss said at that meeting. It was, of course, a personal statement, not an official statement. I call the attention of the House to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said about this recently. He has made our view perfectly clear that we are not in favour of anything which would be divisive of N.A.T.O., or indeed likely to disturb the procedure to the ratification of the non-proliferation treaty.

Mr. Biffen: Is it not true that in his recent visit Herr Strauss indicated that British membership of the Common Market implied a very advanced degree of political integration in Europe? Will the right hon. Gentleman convey to the Foreign Secretary the widespread belief held in this country that neither sentiment nor interest requires that we should become a province of federal Europe?

Mr. Roberts: I think we are well aware of the extent of the sentiment to which the hon. Member has referred and also that the proposals which Herr Strauss canvassed are very far removed indeed, in time as well as in character, from the application which we are making to join the European communities.

Mr. Shinwell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a Times report indicated as plain as possible to those who read and understand it that one of the purposes of Herr Franz-Josef Strauss's visit to this country and his meeting with the Foreign Secretary was to discuss the implementation of an idea about a European nuclear pool in which West Germany would play its part? Would my right hon. Friend come clean about it, if he knows anything about it at all?

Mr. Roberts: The position was made absolutely clear by the Prime Minister when he answered Questions on this specificpoint on 22nd May and 10th June. It is that we are not in favour of such a pool if it is in any way divisive of N.A.T.O. and if it in any way imperils the non-proliferation treaty proposals. I repeat that it would be most misleading to associate this kind of proposal with the kind of application we have made to join the European economic communities.

N.A.T.O. and Warsaw Pact (Forces Reductions)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if proposals for balanced, mutual forces reductions are among the subjects which the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, following the Washington meeting declaration, decided should be dealt with as a priority for discussion with the Warsaw Treaty governments; if the Council now plans to make such proposals to the Warsaw Treaty governments; and whether it will accept the offer by Finland for joint East-West discussions to take place there.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: As the House has already been informed, N.A.T.O. is pursuing studies on mutual and balanced force reductions and issues which might be suitable for East-West negotiation at the right time. As regards the offer by the Finnish Government, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Luard).

Mr. Allaun: But that reply did not state why they have not answered the Finnish invitation. Why has there been this delay even in deciding which are the priority subjects? Did not the Finnish letter state that Russia was prepared to attend without conditions and without objection to the attendance of America?

Mr. Roberts: The Finnish Ambassador called on 5th May. I should not therefore think it reasonable to suggest that there has been undue delay, especially as we informed him that we would consider in the spirit in which it was meant the offer of the Finnish Government to be hosts to such a conference and to the preparatory committee after we have consulted our allies. Since 5th May we have been doing this. Our allies will be replying in their own way as a result of consultations. I do not think that at this moment one could suggest that there has been considerable delay. On the question of the Russian proposal, if my hon. Friend is referring to the Warsaw Pact statement of 17th March, if he reads that again he will find embedded in it very serious pre-conditions which we could not possibly accept.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: Can the Minister tell us whether the N.A.T.O. proposals

for balanced reductions mean reductions in the total armed forces manpower of the various countries—that is to say, disarmament—or simply a withdrawal from a certain zone in Europe?

Mr. Roberts: They mean reductions as well as withdrawal. I would not minimise the technical as well as the poltical difficulty of arranging in a favourable political atmosphere an operation of this kind. Nevertheless, despite the events in Czechoslovakia last year and the tone and preconditions of the Warsaw Pact statement, the N.A.T.O. Council has instructed its permanent representatives to work on precisely that kind of arrangement.
If I may refer to the supplmenetary question previously put by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) which I could not answer at the time—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hurry up."]—he asked four questions in one and I answered three of them, and I ask the indulgence of the House to allow me to answer the fourth. He referred to priorities. This is part of the operation of drawing up a list of possible kinds of negotiation which the N.A.T.O. Council is asking its permanent representatives to work on.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must remind the House that lengthy answers mean fewer questions.

Mr. Longden: What possible confidence can anyone place in an agreement made at such a conference?

Mr. Roberts: I should say in true friendship that that is a counsel of despair.

West Germany (Offset Arrangements)

Mr. Dodds-Parker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the offset agreement with the Federal German Government on defence costs.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs indicated in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) on 13th May, we are now discussing future offset arrangements with the Federal Government. A round of


talks at Ministerial level took place in London on 20th May, and there will be a further round in due course.—[Vol. 783, c. 195.]

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Has the attention of the Minister been drawn to the proposal that defence costs should be put into a blocked account and should not enter into the ordinary balance of payments? If so, can he comment on that?

Mr. Roberts: I would not wish to comment on that or on any point now under negotiation. Progress has been made in the I.M.F. talks here in London, and I hope that a second round, probably to be held in Bonn, will about conclude the negotiations. On the question of a blocked account, I am sure the hon. Member would not expect me to comment.

Mr. Hooley: Will my right hon. Friend resist any suggestions which would conceal from this House and the taxpayer the true costs of our military commitment in Germany?

Mr. Roberts: I think the full facts of the costs, military and otherwise, are pretty well known to the House.

Rhodesia

Mr. Judd: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will now propose to the United Nations that the trust fund for South Africa should be extended to cover Southern Rhodesia.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: A recommendation in the sense my hon. Friend proposes has already been made by the United Nations Economic and Social Council and will be considered at the 24th session of the United Nations General Assembly.

Mr. Judd: Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that our response will be positive, because the unfortunate trend towards the entrenchment of totalitarian and police state methods within Rhodesia means that the principles which led to the establishment of the original fund for South Africa now call for its extension to Southern Rhodesia?

Mr. Roberts: Rhodesian students are already being assisted from the trust fund, which was notionally meant only

for Southern Africa apart from Rhodesia. I cannot commit the Government at this time, but when this matter comes up it is likely that we, as probably the most generous contributor to this fund, will support the recommendations of the Economic and Social Council.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: What is the present cost to the British taxpayer and how helpful does the Foreign Office think this contribution is to our strategic and economic interests in South Africa?

Mr. Roberts: We contributed 40,000 dollars to the trust fund in 1967.

United Nations (25th Anniversary)

Mr. Judd: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recommendations he is making to the United Nations for the celebration of its 25th anniversary.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: In current discussions in New York, we are urging that the anniversary should stimulate serious thought and study, nationally and internationally, about the organisation's rôle, in order to strengthen support for the principles and purposes of the Charter. We support a special high-level meeting at headquarters. We should also like to see youth participate fully in the activities of the Anniversary.

Mr. Judd: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. It is most encouraging to find our representatives concerned with the future. Can my right hon. Friend assure us that the British Government will do everything possible to resist an unseeming orgy of self-congratulatory speeches by world statesmen?

Mr. Roberts: That is exactly what we want to avoid. These celebrations should be practical and realistic—

Mr. Biggs-Davison: And inexpensive.

Mr. Roberts: —and as inexpensive as possible. It would be even more expensive in both money and lives not to have a United Nations to celebrate.

Mr. Evelyn King: Is not one of the organs of the United States actively supporting General Franco in his claims


on Gibraltar? Would it not be appropriate on the 25th anniversary of the United Nations if this exhibition of anti-British prejudice were to cease; and would it not be helpful to the image of the United Nations?

Mr. Roberts: I entirely agree with any efforts to fight and prevent exhibitions of anti-British prejudice wherever they are shown.

European Nuclear Pool

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has received from the West German Government on the subject of a nuclear pool in Europe.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: None, Sir.

Mr. Shinwell: Does that mean that when Herr Franz-Josef Strauss was in this country paying a visit to the Foreign Secretary he was not representing the West German Government?

Mr. Roberts: It means that we have not received any official proposals or representations on this subject from the Federal Government of Germany.

U.S.S.R. (Treatment of Jews)

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will protest to the Soviet Government against the restrictive measures against Jewish people in Russia who wish to emigrate to Israel.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: We are fully aware of the deeply held feelings of many people in this country, in Parliament and outside, but do not consider that further representations at the present time would be helpful.

Mr. Shinwell: In view of the behaviour of the Soviet Union against a small minority of people in the Soviet Union who are suffering from a deprivation of rights which are conferred on other Russian nationals, would it not be a little incongruous and invidious that the Soviet Union should be represented at the four-Power conference and in a position to act as a judge in a solution of the Middle East problem?

Mr. Roberts: I wholeheartedly subscribe to the first part of my right hon.
Friend's supplementary question. He has put it in words which I should be proud to command. We all deplore this kind of abominable persecution of minorities, especially religious minorities. As to the second part of his supplementary question, I think that it is essential to have in the four-Power talks, which are making progress, the presence of the Soviet Union as well as that of the three other permanent members of the Security Council.

Sir B. Janner: May I ask my right hon. Friend to reconsider his decision with regard to raising this matter further, particularly in view of the appeal which has just been published by the Action Group for the Defence of Civil Rights in the U.S.S.R., which is addressed to the United Nations Committee for Human Rights, and which is a courageous document and one which should certainly receive the Government's attention?

Mr. Roberts: I have seen the document as presented in the Press; I agree that it is a significant and, I hope, a hopeful development among certain Russian nationals. I think that my hon. Friend, who has seen me many times on this very poignant issue, will agree that we have to consider whether formal representations by us to another Government would be counter-productive rather than productive to an alleviation of the treatment of these unfortunate people. We are doing everything we can informally. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister formally raised this matter in Moscow when he saw Mr. Kosygin.

Middle East

Sir B. Janner: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the situation in the Middle East; and what progress has been made following the four-Power conference in respect of the invitations to the Arab States by Israel to meet them with a view to discussions taking place between them to arrive at a permanent peaceful settlement.

Mr. Walters: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest developments in the Middle East.

Mr. Colin Jackson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the most recent developments in the Middle East.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: The situation in the Middle East continues to cause us concern. For this reason, we are taking an active part in the four-Power talks still going on in New York. We hope that the Four will before long be in a position to convey proposals or recommendations to Dr. Jarring.

Sir B. Janner: Does not my right hon. Friend realise that the only way of getting a permanent peaceful settlement is by direct negotiations between the Israelis and the Arabs, particularly in view of the experience we have already had when in two successful wars against aggression Israel agreed to terms which were immediately broken by the other side and when none of the powers which had encouraged Israel to accept terms took the slightest step?

Mr. Roberts: As my right hon. Friend and I said on 24th March, direct talks between disputants would normally be what one would expect and although we still hope that at a certain date, sustained by the fact of the four-Power talks, such direct talks will be possible, I fear that they do not seem to be any nearer than they were.

Mr. Goodhart: As the Foreign Secretary frequently says that the survival of Israel is Britain's main policy in the Middle East, why does the Foreign Office approve a policy of selling Chieftain tanks to Israel's enemies while refusing to sell Chieftain tanks to Israel herself? Is not this just another example of the Government letting down their acknowledged friends?

Mr. Roberts: It is not the practice to pronounced on individual transactions of this sort. However, it is understood on both sides of the House that we scrutinise very carefully and responsibly any application that is made to us from this area for arms, particularly with a view to assessing the impact of any decision for or against such an application on the political situation, the peace and the stability of the area.

Mr. Jackson: Have the Government had any success in persuading Mrs. Golda Meir in the recent talks to allow

Israel to adopt a more constructive and positive approach to the Four-Power talks?

Mr. Roberts: The Prime Minister of Israel has already had useful talks with my right hon. Friends and expects to have another talk tomorrow.

Mr. Amery: In view of the widespread anxiety in the House on the question of apparent discrimination in the sale of tanks, will the right hon. Gentleman say why the Foreign Secretary is not here this afternoon and whether he will arrive before the end of Question Time?

Mr. Roberts: My right hon. Friend has very carefully considered what was said in the House on this matter last week and understands the concern of very many hon. Members. However, he is not able to make a statement which would go beyond what I have said this afternoon—

Hon. Members: Why not? Where is he?

Mr. Roberts: —and it is not his intention to come down to the House this afternoon to make it. It is his considered judgment that he cannot make a statement on this matter, at least at this juncture.

Sir A. V. Harvey: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. You will recall that last Thursday the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) and others raised through you, Sir, to the Leader of the House, the question of the Foreign Secretary's coming here at the earliest opportunity—which would have been today—to explain this matter. The Leader of the House, with his normal courtesy, said that he was sympathetic and would do what he could. Surely, it would have been appropriate if, instead of being foisted off with these meagre answers, the House had been told earlier at Question Time what the form was, whereas we are now told at 3.30 that the Foreign Secretary is not coming, and no reason has been given. May I ask, Mr. Speaker, through you, whether the Leader of the House himself will make a statement explaining the position? The House should be treated with courtesy.

Mr. Shinwell: May I ask the Minister this question, Mr. Speaker? Even if it is the traditional custom not to furnish


information about the provision of arms to other countries, how does my right hon. Friend justify the Government's action vis-à-vis Libya of providing that country with Chieftain tanks, in spite of its declaration of war against Israel, and refusing to implement the undertaking with Israel to provide similar tanks? Is he aware that the Leader of the House last Thursday gave a definite undertaking that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary would be here to make a statement on the subject? Why is he not here?

Mr. Paget: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. May I give notice that I shall seek the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is no need at this moment for the hon. and learned Gentleman to give notice of his intention to make an application under Standing Order No. 9. He knows the appropriate moment to make that application.

Sir G. Nabarro: In the circumstances, and in the absence of the Foreign Secretary, may we now have the information? How many tanks have been sent to Libya? Under what contract have they been sent to Libya? Is any part of the contract outstanding for further tanks to go to Libya? What is the total value of the contract with Libya? Was Israel notified of the contract with Libya? Why is there this manifest discrimination against Israel, our friends in the Middle East?

Mr. Roberts: It has never been the practice to pronounce on details of such transactions by this Government or preceding Governments. It is the practice to scrutinise very carefully and with the utmost responsibility every application made by any country in the Middle East for arms from this country so that the decision, whether it be for or against an application, will not disturb or imperil further the peace and stability of the area.

Mr. Mayhew: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, unlike Israel, Libya is not in breach of United Nations resolutions, has not annexed tens of thousands of square miles of other territory, and is not ruling over more than one million foreign subjects with an increasingly heavy hand?
Will he bear those facts in mind in his arms policy towards the Middle East?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Would the right hon. Gentleman, perhaps, wish to alter the words which he used when he said that it was not the Foreign Secretary's intention to come down to the House? This is Foreign Office Question day, and I think that those words were hardly acceptable to the House.
In the context of arms, would it not be one thing if there were an agreement—if there had been an agreement—in New York concerning the Middle East situation, but, in the absence of such an agreement, is not an obligation almost, if not wholly, entered into quite discriminatory against Israel if these tanks are refused?

Mr. Roberts: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his opening remark. If I phrased my answer so as to indicate that the Foreign Secretary was in any way less than very sensitive to the feeling of the House, I apologise at once. It was his considered judgment that he could not usefully make a statement today. This is a normal process of Ministerial decision. I need hardly say that the Foreign Secretary is a Parliamentarian who would be the last to be suspected of being discourteous or inconsiderate towards the feelings of the House.
On the second and substantive point which the right hon. Gentleman made, it has always been our aim, and will continue to be our aim, so to consider these applications from this troubled area as not to discriminate or to appear to discriminate but by whatever decision we make in each particular case to conduce to rather than imperil the political stability and peace of the area.

Mr. Richard: My right hon. Friend is right when he says that it is not Government policy to give details of individual arms supplies, but does not he agree that from time to time in the recent past the Government have given precise reasons why they have abstained from supplying arms to certain countries, notably in the case of South Africa, and have clearly set out the principles? Could he not be a little more forthcoming and give the House some at least of the thoughts of the Foreign Office on the reasons for its refusal?

Mr. Roberts: I cannot add to what I have said. It is an accepted convention, and an essential one, that we should not engage publicly in giving details of these transactions.

Mr. Walters: Will the Foreign Secretary stand robustly by British interests? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is a British interest to supply equipment to Libya, an old and valued friend of Britain, and a very peaceful country?

Mr. Roberts: We are in very good relations with Libya, as we are, indeed, with Israel. It is extremely difficult to deal with applications for arms from whatever quarter and so to decide for or against without one or other of the disputants in this difficult matter accusing us of being partisan. However, so far this country has maintained a reasonably balanced approach to the area.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: When my right hon. Friend speaks of traditional practice, does he recall that between the wars it was the policy of all British Governments to secure the fullest possible publicity for the traffic in arms and that today the objections to secrecy in this matter are very strong? Even on his own showing, is it not the urgent duty of the Secretary of State to come and make a statement about the Libyan affair?

Mr. Roberts: I shall convey the views and feelings of the House to my right hon. Friend, who, I know, will once more consider what has been said and see what he can do.

Mr. Hooson: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this kind of problem would be solved if Britain ceased to supply arms to other countries?

Mr. Roberts: We have taken the lead in that matter. However, unless it is followed by the others concerned, one is in a worse case than previously. We stand ready at any time to participate in an effective all-in agreement to control, to register and, indeed, to cease the supply of arms to all countries in this area.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Edward Taylor, Private Notice Question.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It will be within your

knowledge that, in answering that group of Questions, the Minister, no doubt inadvertently, answered my Question No. 39 regarding discussions with the Israeli Prime Minister, without taking the necessary courtesy of asking the permission of the House. As that Question was answered, Mr. Speaker, may I have opportunity, as is the normal custom, to put a supplementary question arising out of the answer to my Question?

Mr. Speaker: That is a most ingenious request, but I cannot concede it.

Mr. Lewis: Further to my point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not your usual custom, if a Question is answered within a group, and the hon. Member concerned rises in his place and other hon. Members are called, to give him an opportunity to ask a supplementary question? I cannot now postpone my Question. I cannot put a supplementary question. The Minister will not be here again for some weeks. This has now precluded me from the opportunity of putting my Question, postponing it, or putting a further Question down.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman's second observation has more weight than his first one. He may put his supplementary question.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I am much obliged. Mr. Speaker May I ask the Minister whether, when he said that discussions had ensued with the Prime Minister of Israel and that further discussions would take place tomorrow, he will give a definite assurance that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will himself come to the House and make a statement on those discussions?

Mr. Roberts: I can only convey to my right hon. Friend my hon. Friend's desire that he should do that. I cannot commit him to such a course.

RAILWAYS (DERAILMENT, CASTLE CARY)

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Transport whether he will make a statement on the accident which took place on Friday last, involving the derailment of a passenger train.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Richard Marsh): Yes, Sir, I much regret to inform the House that at 16.35 on Friday afternoon the 14.45 diesel-hauled nine-coach express passenger train from Paignton to Paddington was derailed on the up main line at a point about 6 miles west of Castle Cary.
Reported casualties are that 53 passengers were taken to hospital, 12 of whom were detained—one of the latter has since died.
I know that the House will join with me in expressing sincere sympathy with the relatives of the passenger who lost his life and with the injured. Emergency services were called within 10 minutes of the derailment and arrived on the scene without delay.
An inspecting officer of Railways visited the scene of the accident on the evening that it happened and made a detailed examination of the track on the following morning. The derailment occurred on a curve where the track was laid with continuously welded rail. The inspecting officer found a distortion of the track of some 2 ft. 9 ins. towards the outside of the curve at the point of initial derailment.
Early reports that part of the train caught fire after the accident are untrue. The down line was reopened to traffic at midnight on Saturday and the up line at 19.12 yesterday. This was a commendable achievement.
A public inquiry into this accident will be held as soon as possible.

Mr. Taylor: In view of the fact that, in his last report, the Chief Inspecting Officer of Railways called for more continuous welded track as a means of safety, is it not worrying that this accident took place on continuous track? In view of the substantial and steady rise in derailments over the past four years, and the multitude of reasons which have been advanced for them, would the right hon. Gentleman consider harnessing the best brains at the excellent research centre at Derby with the best experts outside the industry to probe further into the increase in derailments, particularly in view of the superb record of safety which British Railways have always enjoyed?

Mr. Marsh: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's last remarks. There is no

evidence to show that continuous welded rail is other than a distinct improvement on jointed rail. It is widely used in Europe and other countries, and all the evidence indicates that it is safer than jointed rail.
The hon. Gentleman will know that a considerable programme of research takes place at the Derby Research Centre of British Railways, which is regarded as probably the leading research centre in the world in terms of safety.

Mr. Peter Mills: Is the Minister aware that some of us are very concerned about the speeding up of the time table to the South-West, particularly in view of the speeds at which that means the trains have to run? Is he further aware that most of us would rather arrive safe and on time rather than five minutes early as a result of a speeded-up service?

Mr. Marsh: Obviously, nothing that I say is designed to deal with this specific immediate accident, which is open to an inquiry at present. It should be borne in mind that, while these accidents are always tragic, they should be kept in proportion. We have about one derailment per million miles. We have about one passenger death per 100 million passenger journeys. While these accidents are very unfortunate, they represent a very good safety record.
A number of measures have been taken to deal with derailments. One is the reduction of speed of freight trains, and that includes short-wheelbase wagons. We are also doing a great deal in terms of improved training for drivers and the modification of braking systems of certain locomotives to achieve smoother braking.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: Although the Minister has said that longer track is perfectly safe, in view of the disquiet caused by statements in the Press in connection with this accident, when the inquiry is completed will it be possible to publish the evidence with regard to the safety factors of the longer track?

Mr. Marsh: The inquiry will be public. The important point is that all the evidence that I know of both in this country and overseas points to a considerable safety bonus with continuous welded rail as opposed to jointed track.

Mr. Hector Hughes: In framing the terms of reference of the inquiry, will


my right hon. Friend make them sufficiently wide as to include the many sad and disastrous accidents which have occurred recently, with a view to realising that this is not only a technical but a humanitarian matter affecting the whole of Britain?

Mr. Marsh: The other accidents to which my hon. and learned Friend refers have been the subject of public inquiries. There is not a common cause through all accidents. Before drawing any conclusions from this one, I think that it would be as well to wait for the outcome of the public inquiry.

Mr. Pardoe: Is the Minister aware that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House share his expressions of sympathy to the relatives and thanks to those who helped so much. In the Western Region, during the past 10 days of hot weather, how many instances have there been of lines buckling as a result of the heat?

Mr. Marsh: I could not say without notice.

Mr. Wiggin: Would the Minister see tit to send his congratulations to the emergency services in Somerset—police, fire and ambulance—whose prompt attention ensured the safety of survivors?

Mr. Marsh: In paying tribute to the services that they rendered, it was my purpose to place this on public record, and I know that British Railways, as is always the case, will express their gratitude to them.

Mr. Bidwell: While recognising that the pending inquiry into this case renders the matter sub judice, so to speak, will my right hon. Friend pay meticulous attention to the evidence which is likely to come out, including any representations from within the industry, particularly the trade union side, possibly complaining about the frequency of and methods used in modern track inspection?

Mr. Marsh: I think that my hon. Friend's question begins to touch upon the subjects for the inquiry, and I would rather leave it at that.

Mrs. Thatcher: While accepting what the right hon. Gentleman said about the excellent safety record of British Railways, would he not agree that a situation

in which we have an increasing number of derailments on less track, the reasons for which we do not know, is a very alarming one? Will he endeavour to widen the inquiry to see that it goes more generally into the question of derailments, in fairness both to those who use and to those who operate the railways?

Mr. Marsh: I do not think that it would be wise to widen the inquiry. There is no evidence at the moment that the lessons to be learned from this accident are necessarily applicable to other accidents. We are getting a greater degree of knowledge about some of the causes. Some undoubtedly stem from the switch from steam to diesel locomotives, with more difficult braking systems and higher speeds. We are taking measures to meet that change.

Mr. Dalyell: What terms of reference are given to the Derby Research Centre?

Mr. Marsh: The centre carries out part of the railways' research and development programme which is approved by the Minister each year. It carries out research into any matters affecting the railways and railway safety. In terms of railway safety, I do not think that anyone would question that the Derby Research Centre is probably as well endowed as any other establishment in the world.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Healey. Statement.

ARMED FORCES' PAY (N.B.P.I. REPORT)

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Denis Healey): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement.
On 30th May, 1968, the Government announced that they had asked the National Board for Prices and Incomes to undertake a thorough-going review of the pay of the Armed Forces. This review was to examine the feasibility of evaluating Service jobs and comparing them with those in civil life by methods which would reduce to the minimum the necessity for subjective judgement and also to examine the basic structure of Service pay and allowances.
The Government have now considered the Board's Report which is published


today. They are grateful for the thoroughness with which the Board have carried out their task.
For the short term, the Government accept the recommended increase in pay to take effect from 1st April, 1969, together with other immediate changes in emoluments recommended by the Board.
The Government accept in broad principle the Board's long-term proposals as a basis for a new structure of forces' pay, along lines which would make it possible to establish a clear relationship between the emoluments of Servicemen and their civilian counterparts.
As the Board recognises, however, much work still needs to be done to establish, following the Report, suitable levels of reward for individual Service ranks, branches and trades; to determine appropriate charges for accommodation and rations; to construct a new pay code which will ensure a square deal for the Serviceman while assisting the Services to overcome current recruiting problems; and to enable the cost and other implications of implementing the new structure to be precisely assessed.
In addition, there are a number of detailed recommendations in the Board's Report the implications of which require careful study which must take some time in certain cases. It will be our intention, however, to complete this process, so far as the practical difficulties and the sheer size of the task permit, by next April. Work has already begun.
The Government accept the Board's proposal for the regular review of forces' pay thereafter.
They also note the views of the Board on Service pensions. This subject is being studied separately, and it will necessarily be some time before the results can be published. A major factor lies in the need to clarify the relationship between Service pensions—together with other occupational pensions—and the Government's earnings-related pensions scheme announced in Cmnd. 3883.

Mr. Rippon: May I say, first of all, how much we regret that this statement could not have been made by our late colleague, Mr. Gerry Reynolds, who did so much work on the subject and who, as a brilliant young Minister, won the

respect of the House for his courage and devotion to duty?

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Rippon: Is the Secretary of State aware, however, that his rather belated statement on the subject, as it stands, is meaningless and wholly unsatisfactory to the House?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we have not got the Report of the National Board for Prices and Incomes and that copies are not available in the Vote Office? Will he, therefore, explain exactly what his statement means? How much increase in pay will the Services get now? What will it cost? What percentage increase will it be?
Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the House regard the Government's continued failure to honour the repeated undertakings to keep Service pay up to date in accordance with the Grigg formula as a serious breach of faith?
We shall have to study the Report, which, I understand, is a long one. However, may I ask him a number of specific questions? First, will he agree that his statement means that there will be at least a further year's delay in reaching conclusions about how to assess Service pay and conditions?
Secondly, will he tell us how far these new proposals and, in particular, the Government's proposed increases today will fall below what would have been due to the Services if the Grigg formula had been applied?
Thirdly, will he accept also that the pay of Servicemen has fallen by something like 8 per cent. below their counterparts in civilian life since April, 1968, and can he say how far behind they will still be after the implementation of his proposals?
Finally, can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that these proposals will get the recruits which the Services so desperately need?

Mr. Healey: First, let me say how much I appreciate the tribute which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has paid to my late right hon. Friend. His record as a Minister of State and as an Under-Secretary in the Ministry of


Defence commended him to the whole House, whether or not everyone agreed with his individual views on particular issues. I feel a very deep sense of personal as well as political loss through his passing.
I deeply regret that through causes which I certainly undertake to investigate, the Report of the Prices and Incomes Board is not now available in the Vote Office, although it was published at three o'clock this afternoon. As the House knows, I am not the Minister responsible for the treatment of reports by the Prices and Incomes Board, but I will certainly undertake to investigate this matter and let the right hon. and learned Gentleman know about it.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman will admit that as soon as I discovered that this was the case I gave his right hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden) a copy, just over half an hour ago, which is more than the usual period of notice which Opposition Front Bench spokesmen have of a statement by a member of the Government. I take it that he, at least, made good use of the preceding half hour.
I hope that you will allow me, Mr. Speaker, since the Report is not momentarily available in the Vote Office, to answer the questions of the right hon and learned Gentleman at a little greater length than would normally be the case, because I know that the whole House is very concerned to know what precisely are the recommendations of the Board.
In the short term, the Board recommends an increase of 3½ per cent., backdated to 1st April this year on the whole of Service pay, that is, including basic pay, additional pay and marriage allowance, which is treated as a component in pay. The Government have decided to pay this increase of 3½ per cent. in pay overall as an increase in basic pay of almost 4 per cent.—3·93 per cent.
In addition, the Government are immediately implementing the recommendation of the Report to bring the pay of Service doctors and dentists into line with that of general practitioners in the National Health Service. This implies an increase overall, although it will be adjusted slightly from rank to rank, of 14 per cent. for Service doctors and dentists.
The Government accept the recommendation of the Board that marriage allowance should be paid to officers under the age of 25 and other ranks under the age of 21 who had previously not been paid marriage allowance.
The Government accept the recommendation that ration allowance should be paid to married soldiers when away from home, something which did not happen in the past and which was very detrimental to Service morale.
The Government have accepted the other recommendations for increases in the short run in certain types of allowance, and adjustments to allowances such as education allowance.
For the long term, the Government have accepted the recommendation that the forces should in future be paid a military salary which, while implying no reduction in the payment of married soldiers, will bring the payment of unmarried soldiers up to the level of married soldiers and will also require the forces to pay charges for those services which are now provided free, such as rations and accommodation, guaranteeing that the forces will get increments of pay directly parallel and equal to the charges which they are then expected to pay.
The other two major long-term recommendations of the Board relate to the way in which pay rates for the individual ranks and trades are determined. The Government accept the Board's recommendation that this should be decided by the most objective form of job evaluation which can be devised and that an addition should be made to compensate Servicemen for the special disadvantages of Service life such as turbulence, danger and discomfort.
The new proposals, which will be brought in next year, will represent a very substantial increase in pay for the Services above what they could have expected if the Grigg formula had been maintained. One of the most important aspects of the Board's report is that it demonstrates that the base from which the Grigg formula started no longer represents the relative skill and qualification of Servicemen compared with people in civil life, and that, therefore, the pay of Servicemen relative to those in civil life should overall be substantially better than was envisaged under Grigg.
For all these reasons I believe that the Report and the Government's implementation of it will be a substantial help to obtaining the recruits which we need.

Mr. Mayhew: While warmly congratulating my right hon. Friend on the latter part of his statement, could he clarify the additions to pay in the interim period? What is the average increase in total emoluments during this interim period compared with the average increase in civil earnings during the same period?

Mr. Healey: I cannot answer the question in relation to civil pay in the interim period. What I can say is that the increase in pay—and my hon. Friend who was a colleague in former years at the Ministry of Defence will know that pay consists of basis pay, additional pay and marriage allowance—for the Serviceman will be an increase of 3½ per cent. The Government have decided to implement this as an increase of 3·93 per cent., nearly 4 per cent. increase in basic pay.

Mr. Goodhew: Can the right hon. Gentleman say a further word about dental and medical officers? Will they be brought into line with general practitioners? They were always well ahead of them under the old system, about 15 per cent., but have gradually got further and further behind. Are they merely being brought up to the level of the general practitioner or back to the position of being 15 per cent. ahead, which was always considered as reasonable remuneration before?

Mr. Healey: No, Sir, they are not being paid 15 per cent. more than general practitioners. As the House will know, general practitioners were regarded, when the Board examined their problems, as grossly overpaid in relation to the nature of their work. They will be paid up to the level of general practitioners, on average about £4,000 a year, minus a component for the next 12 months to account for the free accommodation, and in some cases rations, which Service doctors and dentists obtain.
The increase in their pay represented by this decision is of about 14 per cent., which, although it is very much in excess of the norm permitted under the incomes

policy in ordinary circumstances, is fully justified by that criterion in incomes policy which relates to pay increases required to obtain the requisite number of essential personnel.

Mr. Dalyell: May I welcome the increase in marriage allowance, which is surely just and reflects the trend in civil life? May I ask whether anything is to be done for those certain categories of naval tradesmen, the subject of some discussion in the Navy Estimates debate this year?

Mr. Healey: In the short term what we are doing is giving the Services overall roughly about a 4 per cent. increase in basic pay and removing some of the anomalies in the payment of allowances which we believe were highly deleterious—and the Board agrees with us—to morale and recruiting.
In the long run we are producing an entirely new structure of basic pay, a structure likely to involve rewards substantially in excess of those which would have been permitted under the Grigg formula, because the relative skills and qualifications of Servicemen compared with that of civilians in civil employment turn out, on investigation, to be substantially higher than was recognised in Grigg.

Mr. Goodhart: Is it not clear that the change to a military salary concept will have a profound effect on the tax position of individual Servicemen? In principle, does the Ministry accept this, and, if so, will it meet any increased tax liability of Servicemen?

Mr. Healey: Yes, Sir. In deciding how increases in pay to cover the payment for services now provided free are determined, we shall treat the allowances as gross for tax. In other words, the pay which a man gets to pay for food and accommodation will be high enough to meet the charge after he has paid the tax. I hope that that meets the hon. Gentleman's question.

Mr. Pardoe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that back-benchers need to see a copy of this Report before a statement just as much as Front Benchers? Might it not have been considerate to have postponed the statement until we have the Report? Can the right hon. Gentleman say what will be the cost of


this increase in a full year? Can he say what organisation is available to carry out the work he has said still needs to be done to establish pay codes and conditions of service?

Mr. Healey: I deeply regret that the Board's report is not available. I have already issued instructions that it shall be made available immediately. I regret to say that I could not personally have delayed the announcement. I did not discover this until a few minutes before half-past three and I have to leave for Canberra in about an hour's time, for a conference of the five Commonwealth countries concerned with the Far East.
The cost of carrying out the Government's short term proposals will be a global sum of £14 million for the 3½ per cent. increase in pay plus a sum of £6½ million for the improvements in the way in which allowance are treated—a total of £20½, million.
The total cost of the long-term proposals it is not now possible to estimate because the job evaluation of Service ranks and trades has still to be carried out, although it has begun. The quantification of the so-called "X factor" to which my late right hon. Friend and colleague, Mr. Reynolds, referred in the earlier debate, in terms which were understandable to hon. Members although they would not be Parliamentary, the "mucking about" which soldiers get—not to use the precise analogy to which he referred—has to be dealt with in detail.
The Board has quantified the cost of providing the military salary as distinct from the job evaluation and the "X factor" and this will be found in an appendix to the Report. It is in excess of £50 million. In addition, the Government will pay a substantial sum next year to provide for the requisite awards for individual trades and ranks relating to job evaluation and the "X factor".
It will be a very expensive project, but the House will agree that if an objective study can prove, as it has, that Service men deserve better rewards than was hitherto envisaged, no one would withhold payment of those rewards.

Mr. Mikardo: Does my right hon. Friend realise that if the same positive approach which he has announced for

the pay of Service men were applied to the pay of Her Majesty's Stationery Office employees he would not be having to apologise for the lack of copies of the Board's Report in the Vote Office?

Mr. Healey: I am far from clear that the reason which my hon. Friend attributes for the non-appearance of the Report is the real one.

Sir E. Errington: Would the right hon. Gentleman be clear about his long-term policy and about the tax position? There has always been a feeling in the Services that what has been given by the Minister of Defence has been taken away by the Treasury. It is vitally important that this should be remedied.

Mr. Healey: I am grateful to the hon. Member for making that point. I am conscious that no one in the Services is interested in what I believe is known as an "Irishman's rise". In dealing with this, we are concerned the whole time with what is left for the Serviceman after he has paid his tax, and in determining the increases in pay which are due to payment of charges we shall gross the cost for tax.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: In the long term, can my right hon. Friend say how the percentage increases compare with the 60 per cent. increase being paid to the chairman of the boards of nationalised industries and the proposed 62 per cent. increase being paid to higher civil servants? Is there any relationship between the figures?

Mr. Healey: The recommendations of the Board for Servicemen, like other recommendations it has made, are based on the most detailed and profound study of the value of individual trades and ranks to the nation.

Mr. Ramsden: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of our great concerns about pay is, and has been for the past 18 months, its relationship with recruiting? Does he accept that the Grigg Report was about recruiting? Does he further accept that on the figures which he has given for the latest rise the Services are still about 4 per cent. behind the comparable rates of people outside which, according to Grigg, they should have had?
This is very worrying from the recruiting point of view. Can the right hon.


Gentleman give an assurance that the new military salaries will be reviewed every two years, as laid down by the Grigg formula?

Mr. Healey: The Board and I are deeply conscious of the importance of pay to recruiting. The inquiries made by the Board, which are summarised in the appendices to the Report, show that for other ranks pay is by far the most important single factor.
On the question of recruiting, the figures for April are not yet complete, but I hope that they will be published later this week. I think that they will indicate, as the figures for the last few months do, that the effect of the defence cuts on recruiting is beginning to wear off.
However, as the Board points out in detail, the basic problem which we face in recruiting is that for demographic reasons there is a much smaller number of men from which to draw recruits. We shall have to recruit a greater percentage of that number than ever in the past even to fulfil the lower requirements of the Services when the withdrawal from east of Suez and the rundown of our forces is complete. No doubt this is one of the factors which led the Board to envisage rewards for the forces which will work out higher than the rewards which they will have received under the Grigg formula.

Mr. Rippon: Would the right hon. Gentleman let us know which Minister is responsible for the Report not being available to the House, and undertake to let us know the result of the inquiries which he said he would institute into why it was not available?
Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question which I put to him, what the increase in Service pay would be, both as a percentage and in total, if the Grigg formula were applied?

Mr. Healey: I have undertaken to let the right hon. and learned Gentleman know the result of my inquiries. He is at liberty to publish it, but, as no doubt he knows, I am just leaving for a rather lengthy tour of Australia and the Far East. I imagine that he would like to have the results of my inquiries as soon

as they are available. I may not be able to give them personally to the House.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman's second point enables me to answer a previous question which I forgot. The Grigg formula envisaged a pay increase every two years. The increase this year follows an increase of 7 per cent. last year, but under the new formula, with the military salary, the Board envisages a minimum increase every two years with a fundamental review every six years, and it is open to the Ministry of Defence to ask for a review in intermediate years if circumstances seem to make that desirable.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Rippon: Would the right hon. Gentleman answer my question?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must protect the business of the House.

LIBYA (ARMS SUPPLIES)

Mr. Paget: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the failure of the Foreign Secretary to make a statement to the House on Her Majesty's Government's decision to supply to Libya unconditionally tanks which Her Majesty's Government have refused to supply to Israel.
Last Wednesday, I sought to raise the substantive question. The Leader of the House then stated that he would ask the Foreign Secretary to make a statement. On the following day, the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) raised the additional point that the tanks were to be supplied unconditionally, so that they could be passed on to Egypt or Nigeria or Biafra. The Leader of the House said that the Foreign Secretary would be answering Questions today and would then take the opportunity to make a statement. Neither of these things has happened.
It has been said that it is not customary to make detailed statements about the sale of arms. Nobody has asked for one. What we have asked for is a statement on the principle of supplying arms to one of two parties at war when, under the four-Power pact, we are in the position


of arbitrator between the two Powers which are at war. When the question of supplying arms to South Africa arose, the principle of whether arms should be supplied was discussed in detail by the House and was dealt with in detail by the Government. A statement is refused now.
This is treating the House with contempt. You, Mr. Speaker, are the protector of the House's privileges against the Government. The only way in which we can compel respect is to take priority from the Government on the question of time. You, Sir, can rule that that should happen. If you have any doubt about the will of the House, if it should be a question of Members rising in their places, I doubt whether one Member, other than on the Government Front Bench, will not rise.

Mr. Mayhew: Nonsense.

Mr. Paget: This is something which the House wants and demands. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, as the spokesman of the House when its privileges are in issue, to grant this application.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) was courteous enough to inform me this morning that he might seek to make an application under Standing Order No. 9 if he were not satisfied with the Government's reply.
The hon. and learned Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the failure of the Foreign Secretary to make a statement to the House on Her Majesty's Government's decision to supply to Libya unconditionally tanks which Her Majesty's Government have refused to supply to Israel".

As the House knows, Mr. Speaker is instructed to give no reasons for his decision on applications under Standing Order No. 9 and he must not be taken to endorse any of the arguments urged in support of a Standing Order No. 9 application. But I am satisfied that it would be proper to discuss the matter raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman under Standing Order No. 9. Has the hon. and learned Gentleman the leave of the House?

The leave of the House having been given—

Mr. Speaker: The Motion for the Adjournment will stand over until the commencement of public business tomorrow, when a debate on the matter will take place for three hours under Standing Order No. 9.

The Motion stood over under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) until the commencement of public business Tomorrow.

BILL PRESENTED

ENTICEMENT ACTIONS (ABOLITION)

Bill to abolish actions for enticement presented by Mr. Roy Roebuck; supported by Mr. Arthur Davidson; read the First time to be read a Second time upon Friday and to be printed. [Bill 175.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)

Ordered,
That this day Business other than the the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock—[Mr. Perry.]

SUPPLY

[21ST ALLOTTED DAY],—considered.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ernest G. Perry,]

AGRICULTURE

4.20 p.m.

Mr. J. B. Godber: The Opposition have sought to provide some time this afternoon—time which appears to be somewhat curtailed—to discuss agriculture, but particularly to pinpoint certain problem areas of agriculture which are causing the House and the country considerable anxiety at the present time.
There have been real problems, amounting almost to disaster, in certain parts of the country owing particularly to the quite extraordinary weather conditions which we have had to encounter. The heavy rainfall last summer and last autumn and throughout the winter, and particularly in the spring sowing season, has made farm cultivation impossible in certain areas, and all farmers have had a very difficult winter and spring. Crops in many places look poor. Grass was very late to start growing and the feed bills for April and May must have been a record. The lamb crop has been very bad, particularly for hill sheep. The milk yields are down.
This is a sorry catalogue, but the real disaster has been in certain mainly arable areas. I would define these, roughly, as South Yorkshire, North Lincolnshire, North Nottinghamshire, with very bad patches also in the Fens and in parts of East Anglia. My own constituency of Grantham has several seriously affected pockets, and I am sure there are others in other parts of the country as well.
The Minister will, no doubt, recall that my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) wrote to him a few days ago in the most graphic terms giving a description of the problems in his constituency, and he has given me a copy of that letter. Now he tells me that the actual final figure of rainfall for May, in the area he is talking

about, is five times the average for that month over the last nine years. That is a staggering increase, and demonstrates very clearly the intensity of the problem in certain parts of the country.
In these areas cultivation for a long period has been virtually impossible and many thousands of acres of crops have not been planted. I myself had the opportunity of flying over some of the badly affected areas a fortnight ago today and I had the opportunity, along with some of my colleagues on this side of the House, of looking at the problem.
It was, indeed, the most depressing picture that we saw. We saw hundreds and hundreds of acres uncropped; we saw tractors bogged down in fields; we saw field after field where rubbish was growing unchecked because it was impossible for the farmers to get on the land to do anything about it; we saw many fields where spring corn had been planted and where fresh rainfall had left water standing between the rows of crops. This is the extent of the problem as we actually saw it.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary has also visited these areas, and we are very glad he has done so; and after he did so I saw that the farming Press reported him as saying that the conditions that he saw were among the worst he could remember in 43 years of farming. We all know the Parliamentary Secretary and I do not think that any of us would accuse him of exaggeration. Therefore, I would think that, if he says that, he also is convinced of the serious nature of the problem, and I am quite sure he will have conveyed that point of view to his right hon. Friend.
The Minister, in his own Monthly Agricultural Report, dated 10th June, says of this problem of further heavy rainfall on land already saturated that it had
seriously interrupted field work, particularly on heavy land much of which was waterlogged.
It goes on to say that a
sizeable acreage intended for sowing had to be left fallow.
All I would say is that the use of the phrase, "sizeable acreage" is a modest way of describing the enormous problem which is involved.
Further, I noticed that the Agricultural Comments in The Times today talk of a


possible 400,000 acres in Lincolnshire alone. I think that that figure is rather high, myself. I would put it, however, at at least 250,000 acres which could not be sown in these areas.
The Minister, presumably, will have a fairly clear estimate himself, even if the 4th June figures are not available; if he has been able to have an early look at the figures, perhaps he can give us some actual figure.
The first question I put to the right hon. Gentleman in considering this problem is: will he tell the House what he believes the effect will be of this dreadful degree of circumstances following one upon another? What effect will this continuous run have on the course of production in the current year as estimated by him at the time of the Price Review?
I have been talking about the totality of the problem, but the real difficulties lie in the individual cases. I have heard of many cases where up to one-half of the farm is uncropped—among the farms in these areas. I heard of one farm of 230 acres of which the farmer had been able to crop only 30 acres, and the remainder will not be cropped at all this year. At present-day costs, at present-day rents, these difficulties are really devastating. That is why we have brought this subject before the House today, and I am quite sure that some of my hon. Friends who will be seeking to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will be able to reinforce what I have said about the size of the problem.
Of course, we do not blame the Government for the weather.—[Laughter.] Wait for it. We do blame them for having brought farming to a state where farmers are extremely vulnerable to a disaster of this kind. Both the present Minister and his predecessor have told us many times, at the times of the Price Reviews, that they have been infinitely more generous than we were with the ones which we gave. The present Minister, at the time of the present Review, told us, I think, that it was the most generous there had been. That is the sort of story we get, but if this is really so we ought now to be having some evidence of the advantages which the farmers should have been getting from this generous Government. Of course, the figures with which the Government regale us are estimates of what balance of

advantage it is hoped there will be to the farmers.
What interests me more is the actual outcome, and this year's outcome, shown clearly enough in the White Paper, is a £39 million drop in farming income in the current year. That is what it tells us. I agree that we are told—indeed it is right in some part—about the adverse weather conditions, but, again, it cannot all be a matter of weather in this Governments consistent record of failure to get the farmers adequate incomes and to get expansion going.
The real truth leaked out in a Written Answer given by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary on 28th March to my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale). My hon. Friend asked the Minister
to give the latest figures in a table showing the farming aggregate net income at constant market values with the forecasted index figure for 1968–69."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th March, 1969; Vol. 780, c. 387.]
The Parliamentary Secretary gave these figures, starting with the year 1954–55, using an index at constant 1954–57 prices, with the average for the years 1954 to 1957 being 100. Starting with 1954–55, the figure was 97·4. With certain variations it went up until it reached the peak in the last year for which the Conservative Government were responsible, 1964–65 when it reached 112·7. This is at constant prices.
This means the farmer's ability to pay, the farmer's purchasing power, had increased very materially between the first date given and 1964–65. It went up to 112·7. No figures since then have ever been as high as that. The best figure was for 1967–68, which was 1½ points below, and the figure has now fallen back to 97·9, which is only just above the figure for 1954–55.
The position of the farmers today, on the Government's own estimate, is that their purchasing power has dropped right back to the figure it was 15 years ago. That is the result of five years in which the Labour Party has been in power. It is no good the Government telling us that the position is so much better, when every farmer knows that it is worse. The Government are responsible for having brought the farming industry to such a state that when serious problems like


this arise the industry has neither the resources not the ability to stand up to them. The farmers' purchasing power has fallen dramatically, and the Government, having deprived farmers of the ability to look after themselves must accept responsibility for helping them out.
No doubt the Minister will use as an argument the bad weather. In anticipation of that, speaking as I do before the Minister, I draw to the attention of the House one significant factor which emerged, not in this Minister's Price Review, but during the lifetime of this Government in the Price Review for which his right hon. Friend was responsible in 1965, which was the first Price Review after his party came back to power.
Paragraph 66 of that Price Review, Cmnd. 2621, is a summary at the end of the announcement of the provisions of that year's Price Review, and it reads as follows:
In reaching their conclusions the Government have had in mind the marked improvement in the industry's income since 1963–64"—
That was under a Conservative Government—
… both actual and on a normal weather basis. It is recognised that this year cost increases have been substantial, but the Government consider that, in the present circumstances of the national economy, the industry should, like others, be expected to absorb a large part of its increased costs through its increasing productivity. The net income of the industry depends on many other things besides the level of the price guarantees and production grants, but, in the Government's view, the present determinations will give the industry the opportunity of improving its income in the coming year.
Just for the record, they did not improve their income in the coming year; it dropped by £12 million, as the Minister's White Paper shows.
My point in quoting that paragraph is contained in the first sentence:
In reaching their conclusions the Government have had in mind the marked improvement in the industry's income … both actual and on a normal weather basis.
That must mean that the Government were taking account of the advantage farmers had had from the weather and reducing the award accordingly. It can mean nothing else, and no other Government

since the Price Reviews started have ever done that.
There has always been a tradition that farmers would be expected in general to stand the bad weather conditions, but that they would always have to the full the advantage of good weather conditions, and until this Government did so no Government have ever sought to take that away from them. From the time when Tom Williams was Minister, no Government have tried to do that, and nor has any Conservative Minister. It took the present Government to try to take away from farmers some of the benefits they derived from a good season.
Because the Government did that, there is an inescapable obligation upon them to help farmers when they are in difficulty, as they are now. The Minister has an irrefutable obligation to do something to help the farmers. To be fair to him, I think that he wants to help, I do not deny that for a moment, but I want to emphasise that he has this obligation, and I hope that he will bear my arguments in mind.
It is our duty, on both sides of the House, to try to find practicable ways of suggesting how help can be given in this difficult situation. Several suggestions have been put forward. The one most frequently mooted is that there should be a special Price Review. Some of my hon. Friends may be asking for that today. I have thought a great deal about this, and I have come to the view that this would be a long process and, at the end of the day, even if determinations were given, they would be of so general a nature and so widespread across the whole of agriculture that, however necessary it is for all farmers to have a squarer deal, the people we are trying to help would not be helped by this operation. It would not be sufficiently selective.
I therefore turn to the suggestion that there should be a subsidy for fallow. I am told by farmers in the areas concerned that N.A.A.S. officers, even before it became essential for land to be fallowed, were advising farmers in their own interests that they should fallow the land which had got into such a bad state. So there may be some justice in demanding a subsidy for fallow. I am not altogether convinced that this is the best way of


trying to help. A fallow subsidy would mean that farmers who had made tremendous efforts to plant corn in adverse conditions and who would get an indifferent crop would get no help, whereas those who had not been able to plant any corn, or who perhaps had not tried to, would get help. This would be invidious and undesirable, and I hope that the Minister will agree with that analysis.
Much more help would be provided, although of a negative nature, by the suggestion that has been mooted for spreading tax losses over three or five years. This is a way in which the Government could and should help. I hope that the Minister will respond affirmatively to this suggestion and, if he cannot tell us that he will do this, will he tell us precisely why he cannot? This could provide immediate help since we know that the profits for one year often provide the funds for paying the tax for the previous year.

Sir David Renton: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, because of the difficulties he has described, a great many farmers, particularly farmers in a small way, are in immediate need of cash? If Government assistance is forthcoming, it must be in a form which gives cash to those who need it most.

Mr. Godber: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I am sure that he is right on this and that he will support what I intend to say later.
I am trying to analyse the suggestions which have been made, and the next suggestion I will deal with is for drainage grants. Many acres which have had to be left fallow would benefit substantially from drainage, but, in the context of what I have been saying, farmers do not have the means to provide their share of the money for carrying out drainage. I know that the drainage grant is already one of the highest grants, and that any Minister would face with reluctance grants exceeding 50 per cent. Nevertheless, in these special circumstances, for one season only, a case can be made for a higher amount than the normal drainage grant. I put it no higher, and ask the Minister to give consideration to that suggestion.
I ask the right hon. Gentleman particularly to look at my next point on drainage

which, while small, is significant. I have received reports that even now, in spite of all the difficulties, some farmers want to go ahead with drainage schemes and are willing to do so under present grant conditions. The normal machinery of operation, application and agreement, has been somewhat pedantic. I know that the Minister's officers have difficult problems on their hands, but I ask him to ensure that where any farmer can get ahead with drainage, red tape will not be allowed to obstruct him and that he will be given an immediate opportunity, an immediate contracts agreement, to go ahead. This is done under the Farm Improvement Scheme in certain circumstances and if the Minister were to give instructions in this way a limited number of people who want to get on with their work as soon as the land is dry enough would be assisted to do so.
Another suggestion put to me is that those who have been able to crop some part of their farm will be desperately short of cash in the months immediately ahead and that some help might be given to them in the form of an advanced acreage payment for cereals which they have actually planted. This is something which could have only a limited effect for those in need of ready cash, but it is worthy of consideration.

Mr. James Dance: My right hon. Friend will know from the examples that I have given to him that many farmers in my part of the country have had to sell up because of their difficulties. Should not help be given to farmers in these circumstances by the Treasury allowing them to ask the banks for help?

Mr. Godber: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because he leads me to my next point, bank credit.
I agree with what my hon. Friend has said about that. One thing that the Government can do to help materially is to discuss with the banks how the banks could provide further help to any farmer in any way credit worthy. It should be remembered that I ask this under the cloud of the Government's own demand—and I use a strong word deliberately—to the banks that they restrict their credit ceilings. The Chancellor has "fined" the banks for not having got down to the figures he gave.


But in this instance the Government could say that in these limited and well-defined areas the banks should be allowed to give more credit to these farmers over a period when they judge the farmers to be credit worthy; in other words, deliberately to go over their ceilings of credit for a limited period to cover a special emergency.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: My right hon. Friend said that he was talking in the context of cereal acreage payments. I hope that he will include potatoes, because potatoes which have been under water for more than 24 hours will never be harvested.

Mr. Godber: I sympathise with my hon. Friend, because potatoes are a very expensive crop, but there is no acreage payment for potatoes and to include them would require fresh legislation, which is a difficulty.
Those are the main avenues which have been suggested as means of helping the farming community and I am sure that the Minister has considered them all. I hope that he will have something positive to tell us today about at least some of them as ways of providing help. These areas extend over a considerable number of acres and many constituencies are affected. We are all seeking to find a way in which these farmers may be helped and the criterion by which any suggestion should be judged is whether it can provide means to help these farmers to carry on.
There is the other side to the coin. As a result of these disasters, the Treasury and the Ministry will be making a direct saving. I am sure that it is not the Minister's wish to make a saving in this way, but, in fact, he will be doing so. I have been given an estimate of 250,000 acres which were not cropped and which would normally have been cropped with corn. If that estimate is anything like right, it will mean a very big saving on deficiency payments—and for cereals it would be nearly that acreage—of at least £10 an acre on average. There is also the saving of the fertiliser subsidy for fertiliser used on that acreage and the probable saving in the higher prices which may well eventuate for the end product of a smaller crop.
It is impossible precisely to quantify what saving the Government will make,

but on all the various factors resulting from this year's adverse weather I estimate that it will be at least £10 million on the amount which the Government estimated at the time of the Price Review they would have to pay in one form or another. If the Minister does not like my estimate, I ask him to give us his figure.
The right hon. Gentleman will be well aware that it is customary for the Ministry to make fresh forecasts of the cost of agricultural support at regular intervals throughout the year. There must, therefore, be a recent figure which his officials have available for what they regard as the cost as a result of the changed circumstances since the Price Review. My estimate of £10 million may be inaccurate and, if it is, perhaps the Minister can say what he thinks it will be. Whatever the figure, it cannot be denied that it will be large, running into some millions of pounds. That will be a saving of money which the farmers will not get and unless the Government propose a special Price Review, there is very little in the suggestions which I have listed which could restore this large sum of money to the farmers.
If help is to be given, we have to find ways of getting this money back into the hands of these farmers. We are not asking the Government for extra money, but merely seeking to see that money which they were willing to provide in March they will still provide even though in a different form. If help is to be given, it is necessary to be clear what it is intended to do. It is not intended to help the generality of farmers, although I have shown that they have been unfairly hit in the last few years.
That should be put right at the next Price Review. It is certainly not to give charity to those who have been hard hit by the abnormal weather conditions. These farmers do not ask for charity. The purpose must be to enable farmers who have been caught by these appalling conditions to carry on and by their own efforts to get on their feet again. Of the measures I have discussed, only the fallow grant could possibly do this, and I have already said that I recognise its probable unfairness. If not that, what else can be suggested?
I have one suggestion of my own which may fit the bill. I do not ask the Minister for an immediate response to it. I ask that he and his officials consider it with urgency and sympathy. I do not ask him to comment on it today if he does not wish to do so, for he may wish to discuss it with the Treasury. I believe that it is workable and that it would be fair and that its overall cost to the Government would not be nearly so much as the saving which the Government will make out of the misfortunes of these farmers.
My suggestion is that the Government should provide interest-free loans for a period of three years to any farmer who can show that on at least one-fifth of his arable acreage he has been prevented from cropping by the weather conditions, or that his attempts to crop have been largely nullified by the weather. The figure of one-fifth of his acreage could obviously be changed according to what the Government felt, but that is my suggestion. The sums available could be limited to £5,000 for an individual farmer, or perhaps un to £10,000 if a farmer could show exceptional circumstances.
Such a scheme could be administered by the Minister's divisional executive officers with an appeal to the county A.E.C. in any case of doubt. At the end of the three years, the money should be repaid direct or, if it were not repaid, the Government would have the right to deduct it from any payments due to the farmer, either deficiency payments or production grants, until the loan was cleared up.
If 2,000 farmers qualify at £5,000 each, the sum loaned will amount to £10 million. The real cost to the Government, however, will only be the interest lost on the money, plus limited administrative costs. I estimate the total cost to the Government as £1 million a year for three years, diminishing rapidly thereafter. By tying repayment to deduction of subsidy payment, bad debts could only arise where the applicant gave up farming, so the risks are very small.
I agree that this is an entire break with anything done before—that is why I do not ask the Minister for an immediate response—but it is certainly not impossible either to institute or to administer. If the Minister has something better to offer, well and good. If not, I seriously

urge him to consider my suggestion to see whether he can devise a way of implementing it, because it could mean fresh hope for many good men who have been caught up in these intolerable conditions and who deserve a chance to get back on their feet again. I put it to the Minister in this spirit. I hope that he will accept it in the same way.

Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is not only the cereal farmer who has been hurt by these disastrous conditions recently? Will he say how he thinks the potato grower, and other types of farmers, who have been equally affected, could be helped?

Mr. Godber: By having the scheme administered by the divisional executive officers, with appeal to the county A.E.C.s. I should be happy to see discretion given to the county A.E.C.s in particular circumstances to deal with the kind of case that my hon. Friend has in mind. But it is largely the cereal areas where the worst cases have arisen. However, such a scheme as this could be devised to provide for the kind of case that my hon. Friend mentions.
In summary, there is a desperate need to help a limited number of farmers, most of whom are to be found in the one or two fairly clearly defined areas to which I have referred. In my view, the Government have contributed to their plight in the way that they have lowered farmers' real incomes over these last five years.
For farmers generally something will have to be done at the next Price Review, even to maintain production. I have not, of course, talked about the expansion programme. For farmers in the badly affected areas something must be done if they are to carry on at all. The Minister now has an opportunity to do something. But sympathy is not enough. Help must be given. I have had the temerity to suggest one way in which help might be given. I asked the Minister either to accept this or to devise some scheme of his own which will provide the cash to enable these people to carry on. That is what the House wants. I hope that the Minister will respond.

4.53 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes): I am


glad that we are having this further opportunity to debate agriculture this afternoon. The right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) has raised a number of issues and has just put forward an interesting proposal. He has asked me to consider it. I always consider very carefully any proposal that is made to me by right hon. or hon. Members. At first blush his suggestion presents many difficulties, one of which was illustrated by the question put to the right hon. Gentleman by one of his hon. Friends who suggested that the scope of the scheme might be widened to include farmers who had suffered because of the weather or for some other reason.
As the debate has, unfortunately, been eroded by statements, I propose to be as brief as possible, in order to give hon. Members the opportunity to speak.
Two months ago we debated the decisions which the Government had taken following the Annual Farm Price Review. The House then passed a resolution which stated that those decisions placed
the right emphasis on those commodities where expansion is wanted in the interests of the agricultural industry and of the country.
Let me make this quite clear. It was the right emphasis then and it is the right emphasis now. I have not changed my mind. I set out our objectives of selective expansion then, and I repeat that this is the course which we have set ourselves over the years to 1972–73.
I was grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the grudging admission that I am not responsible for the bad weather. The agricultural policy of no Government guarantees equitable seasons—neither too hot nor too cold, too wet nor too dry. I remind the right hon. Gentleman of the situation when he was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture. He said today that he was stating a significant fact about the 1965 Farm Price Review. Another significant fact is what he said as a Minister. The 1959 White Paper, Command 696, referred to
. … the fact that during the last five years"—
I repeat, during the last five years—
adverse weather conditions have substantially outweighed favourable conditions.
In the preceding year, when he was also Parliamentary Secretary, despite the

adverse weather conditions to which he referred, the Conservative Government reduced the value of the guarantees by 18·9 million.
It is easy to be virtuous in Opposition. The right hon. Gentleman always is when he makes his speeches. But I certainly make no claims on the weather. Like everyone else, I have to take it as it comes. But, with the right hon. Gentleman, I share the anxieties and disappointment of those farmers whose plans have been set back by the bad weather. This setback underlines a point which too many people are reluctant to accept. Any policy for agriculture—even the best, which is our policy of selective expansion based on an overall rise in productivity—must be realistic about the hazards which beset farming.
That is why I refused to set up precise commodity targets or objectives either last November or in my Review statement in March. Farmers need a framework, a broad indication of what is expected of them, a guide to the priorities within the tasks to which they apply their skill. I do not believe that they look for detailed intervention in all that they do. In my view, the less intervention the better. But, on the other side of the coin, there are some strains which farmers must be left to carry. Individualists that they are, I believe that the best farmers would rather have it that way.
Having declared my philosophy, I now turn to the problems caused in some places by excessive rainfall and water-logging. To assess the extent of these problems, I have called for reports from my officers in the field. I have also had detailed reports from my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary who has paid two visits to the areas where difficulties are most concentrated. My information is that in the country as a whole, because of the persistent wet weather, 120,000 acres intended for cropping have not yet been planted. Almost two-thirds of this total is in the East Midlands and South Yorkshire areas. With the recent fine weather, I should expect some reduction in these figures. The worst effects of the weather have been experienced in the east of the country, in an area stretching from Yorkshire down to Northampton, Cambridge and Norfolk. But elsewhere areas and pockets of heavy land have also felt similar effects.
Apart from the area which is likely to remain in fallow, there are fairly widespread areas of the country in which crops have been planted in poor conditions. At this time of year it is difficult to estimate with any great accuracy how these conditions will ultimately affect yields. This depends on the weather between now and harvest.
That is the situation. The commodities most affected, as the right hon. Gentleman has indicated, are cereals and potatoes. It is likely that rather more than 100,000 acres intended for cereals will not now be sown. This is a tragic situation. Every right hon. and hon. Member is extremely sorry about this situation, but we must at the same time keep this question in proportion. Our total acreage of cereals is well over nine million. That is the kind of problem that we are facing. The result of the unsown acreage—

Mr. Peter Tapsell: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that comparing the total national acreage with the acreage affected is very unsatisfactory? The fact is that certain farmers in Lincolnshire are facing ruin unless they get special help.

Mr. Hughes: I shall come to that in a moment. The House must look at the broad picture in terms of our objectives to 1972–73. I am trying to be frank and honest with the House, and I am entitled to say that the figure of 100,000 acres affected by the weather must be set against the figure of a further 9 million acres which is the total arable acreage. That is not an unreasonable point to make. The result of the unsown acreage and possibly lower yields from crops sown in difficult conditions might be a loss of cereals tonnage of some ½ million tons which we might otherwise have expected. That is the likely loss which my advisers calculate may result.

Mr. Paul Hawkins: What about sugar beet?

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman does not help by interrupting when I am trying to deal with the issue commodity by commodity. If he will be patient, he will get an answer to his question.
The planting of potatoes is complete in the south and west, but is still in progress in the north and east. On 11th

June the Potato Marketing Board estimated that about 10,000 acres were still unplanted. Some of this leeway will already have been made up, but it is considered too early to predict what the crop will be.
With that assessment of the position, I turn to the question of what the Government can or should do to ease these difficulties.

Mr. John M. Temple: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that the heavy grassland in the county of Cheshire has been murdered this year by putting cattle on it and that pastures have been irretrievably damaged? Will he also accept that it would have been impossible to put cattle on new leys because they would have been murdered or substantially damaged? That has happened in the dairying counties as well as in the arable districts.

Mr. Hughes: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. I know the county well, and I have observed that for myself.

Mr. Michael Jopling: The right hon. Gentleman will recall that his Department allowed the Potato Marketing Board to make 1969 a quota year, with only 85 per cent. as the quota acreage? Will he now say whether, in retrospect, he regrets that decision?

Mr. Hughes: No, I do not, because supplies are coming forward well now, and the needs of the market will be met. Looking at the whole picture, I think that the decision I made last year was the right one.
I was about to deal with what action the Government ought to take. I have seen references in the Press to a fallowing grant, which was referred to by the right hon. Gentleman. The suggestion is that a cash payment should be made to any farmer with an abnormally high proportion of his land unsown where this is attributable to waterlogging caused by bad weather. The right hon. Gentleman gave his view, and I agree with it. I think that many farmers see objections to that idea. I think that it would be inequitable. It would help those who had failed to sow. It would not help those who had managed to get a crop in with considerable effort and a high standard of management.
I do not think that we could make a payment in cases where land had to be left bare, but not in other cases where loss or hardship had been caused by unavoidable weather conditions, such as the harsh winter and late snowfalls in the hills. It is a well-established principle, and one which the industry accepts, that weather is one of the inevitable risks of farming. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I have no power to make payments from public funds to relieve farmers when the weather is more than unusually unkind.
To seek powers in general terms would breach that principle, and it is a principle which has been followed by successive governments. To seek specific powers in the present case, I should need to be satisfied that the difficulties were so acute, or of such disastrous proportions, as to put them in a class of their own. This is what the House has to judge. The figures which I have quoted show that that is not so. I do not believe that the figures reflect a disastrous situation, and I have given the matter considerable thought over the last week or so.
I do not want the House to think that I am belittling the difficulties. I am not. A number of good farmers are experiencing severe difficulty, and I am no less understanding and sympathetic than any other hon. Member, but it cannot be said that there is a clearly definable area of the country where the wet land problem is of disastrous proportions. There are other problems of a quite acute character, to which two hon. Gentlemen opposite have referred, and it is extremely difficult to discriminate in favour of one area or one group of farmers as against another group. I have therefore regretfully, but quite firmly, come to the conclusion that the situation is not such as would justify my asking Parliament for special authority to make payments.

Sir Charles Mott-Radclyffe: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that as most of the farmers affected are, first, short of cash, and, second, short of credit, one of the silliest things the Government have done is to increase S.E.T. which merely increases a farmers indebtedness to the bank in the three

months intervening between the time payment is made and the time it is reclaimed?

Mr. Hughes: I am trying to deal with the major issues, and what can be done to help to solve them. I am dealing also with the questions asked by the right hon. Gentleman. I appreciate the point about S.E.T. This tax in relation to agriculture needs to be looked at carefully. I do not for a moment dispute that, but I want to deal with the general position, and with the taxation position in particular. I know that some farmers with financial resources depleted because of the weather are concerned about payments, about taxation, and about the availability of credit.
I have discussed this matter with my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, and I am glad to say that I have from him an assurance to the effect that the local officers of the Inland Revenue will use to the full the discretion which they have to deal sympathetically with cases on an individual basis where the payment of tax in one sum would cause great hardship. Any farmer who is worried about meeting his tax bill on the due date should not hesitate, therefore, to put his problem to the local tax collector.
I am also glad to say that any farmer who is unfortunate enough to make a trading loss can apply to have his assessment based on the previous year's profit reduced by the amount of such loss, thus reducing, or even extinguishing, his tax liability. He can also claim repayment on the tax already paid, and if the loss exceeds the assessment the balance may be carried forward and set against the profits of future years. I hope that hon. Gentlemen will study carefully what I have said when it is published in HANSARD. I hope that that relaxation will be of assistance to farmers who find themselves in this difficulty.

Mr. Godber: I did not wish to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman when he was dealing with such a complex matter, but he is leaving us a little more confused than we would wish to be. Is he saying that it will be possible for farmers to spread their payments over two or three years? Or is this merely temporary relief for a matter of a month or two?

Mr. Hughes: This is more in the nature of a relaxation of the existing situation. It does not bring the farmer into a category, for example, of a company, but it gives him the opportunity of approaching the local tax inspector to obtain considerable amelioration, and I think that this will be of considerable assistance to him.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: Does that mean that the tax inspector will have discretion to gauge tax over two years, and have one year's power of retrospection in this regard?

Mr. Hughes: That is the situation as I understand it. I have been discussing this with my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, and he conveyed that to me this morning. I understand the position to be as the hon. and learned Gentleman has just stated it.
I should like to turn to the credit position. The industry already receives top priority within the ceiling for bank lending. I have been in touch with the joint stock banks and they have assured me that—as on previous occasions—they will give whatever additional assistance they can to help farmers with special problems due to the bad weather. Also, the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation has promised to give as much help as it can, for example by postponing the collection of interest on outstanding loans. So, both the banks and the Corporation will give as much assistance as possible.

Mr. James Dance: I think that the right hon. Gentleman realises, as I have already said this afternoon, that some farmers in my constituency have had to sell up because they cannot get credit from the banks. This is not the fault of the individual bank managers, because they are good risks, but, because of the ceiling, they cannot get credit to tide them over for a short time.

Mr. Hughes: If the hon. Gentleman can give me examples of creditworthy farmers having been refused credit, should be happy to look at them. I have heard this statement several times, but I have received no examples of such cases

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I have written to him and tried to make the point—I should

be grateful for a reply today—that, because of three bad years in a row, this being by far the worst, some farmers now simply dare not ask the banks to borrow more money at the rate of interest which is now in force. This is the problem: they need the cash.

Mr. Hughes: I cannot go beyond what I have already said. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman will study tomorrow what I have said. If he thinks that I can be of further assistance, I should be grateful if he would let me know.
My final point on assistance is that farmers with special difficulties have behind them the full resources of my Department's technical and advisory staff, who will be able to tell them how best to deal with fallow land to get a good lead-in for next season. Drainage problems come in here, and farmers can already call on field drainage grants, which, at 50 per cent., are the highest percentage grants paid by my Department.
I will certainly consider the charge of the right hon. Gentleman that the procedures leading to the payment of grants are clumsy. I have never heard this charge before, but I will certainly investigate carefully what he has said.

Mr. Godber: The word "charge" is a little strong. I was not making any accusation. I was saying that cases have come to my knowledge in which the time taken has been longer than would seem necessary if urgent work procedure could be applied. In the case of some grants, like farm improvement grants, it might be better if urgent work authority was given to go ahead and the grants paid later. It is the question of speeding up the payment because time is limited which is very important.

Mr. Hughes: I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman says. My Department will consider this carefully. We are anxious to see that grants to which there is an entitlement are paid as quickly as possible without unnecessary red tape. It was his use of the phrase "red tape" which worried me, but I will consider that point.
The right hon. Gentleman underlined present problems. We have had the latest part of a serial from him—not the


"Forsyte Saga" with Soames, but the "Hindsight Saga" with Godber. I do not believe that he intended to be overcritical. The farmers and we know that weather may upset short-term plans, which makes it all the more necessary for them to know the longer-term objectives of Government policy. This is what I have been anxious to achieve in my 12 months in the Ministry—that we should give the industry practical guidelines, not from month to month or from year to year but looking ahead three or four years. This is what I have tried to do.
I think that we have removed many uncertainties on that score. Of course, progress is bound to be affected, sometimes favourably, at other times unfavourably, by the weather and other unforeseeable circumstances like the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease 18 months ago. But this does not invalidate what we have set out to do in the longer term.
I accept of course that, as a result of the bad weather of the past 18 months, cereals production has not advanced as we would have wished and I admit that this set-back is disappointing. Time has been lost and this will make it more difficult for the industry to achieve the cereals target by 1972–73.
We must take account of the other fronts, where progress is more satisfactory. On the livestock side, for example, the position is much better. There have been some ewe losses, and lambing rates have been affected by the weather, but the latest figures show that both the beef and the dairy herds have increased by over 3½ per cent. since March, 1968. I think that the industry would regard that as very satisfactory. Since then, substantial fresh incentives to increased beef production have been given. The guaranteed price has been increased, as have the levels of the hill cow and beef cow subsidies. Stocking ratios under these schemes have been improved. The future outlook for increased beef production under the expansion programme is very encouraging. It is right to consider that side of the coin as well. We must be careful not to be misled about this by the seasonal reduction in marketings of fat cattle, which has been temporarily aggravated by the poor weather and late grass season.
Taking all this together and putting into perspective some of the right hon. Gentleman's criticisms, I see no reason why the Government or the industry should lose faith in our objectives. Both sides of the House want to see the 1972–73 objectives achieved. Of course, we shall continue, with the farmers' unions, to review progress towards them. Meanwhile, we should suspend judgment on the present harvest until we have the figures. We shall know in two or three months with far greater accuracy what the harvest is likely to be.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned £10 million as the likely saving by the Government. It is impossible to make a precise estimate of any saving at this stage. Later on, in the autumn we shall be in a far better position. In the meantime, the attitude of the House should be to encourage the farmers, not to give this constant impression of pessimism which emanates from several hon. Members opposite. The best contribution which we can make to the industry is to give it confidence, as these policies have done.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): I would remind right hon. and hon. Members that this is a very short debate and would ask them to keep their speeches short.

5.18 p.m.

Mr. A. W. Wiggin: I crave the indulgence of the House on what is for me a most daunting occasion—although I take some comfort from the fact that all other hon. Members have been through this ordeal before me and therefore will, I hope, be sympathetic.
Unfortunately I did not know my predecessor, David Webster, personally, and what I have learned about him comes from many friends, both in this House and in his constituency, and with no embellishment from myself. Wherever I go in my constituency people tell me how well they knew and liked David Webster. He worked tirelessly on their behalf and, having seen some of his letters, I know that he pursued even the smallest matter to a satisfactory conclusion more often than not. Many of my colleagues have spoken to me of his sense of humour, which was a great asset


in this House and which especially endeared him to his many close friends. A number of hon. Gentlemen opposite have gone out of their way to express to me their fondness for him. It is not for me to forecast what might have been for him, but after an exhausting, yet successful, year his prospects looked bright indeed. His wife and family have good reason to be proud of his achievements. The example that he set was a noteworthy one.
After two weeks of glorious weather it takes a farmer to complain. I feel, however, that complaints are justified by the gravity of the situation in agriculture. With the appalling weather, about which we have been hearing today, the background of rising costs, the highest ever Bank Rate, the decreasing labour force and the problem of mounting surpluses and marketing problems, it is scarcely surprising that we are debating agriculture today.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) pointed out that many of us in the arable world have suffered three bad harvests in a row. I can confirm this—1966 saw a greater level of cereal disease than had been experienced in living memory; 1967 finished with a drought which in many cases killed the corn rather than ripening it, and 1968 is still fresh in our memories as one of the worst harvests from the weather point of view that there has ever been. The picture this spring has been painted by a number of my hon. Friends, and I can speak personally of the floods in the Severn Valley which have ruined 30 per cent. of my cereal acreage this year.
I would welcome the imaginative scheme of my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) to see us through the difficult financial days that lie ahead. It has been said that the system of continuous cereal cropping that has been adopted is partly to blame for this disaster. If this is accepted, than I suggest that, in giving the grant to field beans, the Government have partially accepted that continuous cereal growing might have its undesirable side effects. Cannot the grant cover oilseed rape, maize, linseed and other import substitutes, to say nothing next year about a grant for a bare fallow.
I turn from the arable side of the question, of which I have personal experience, to dairying, which is a predominant part of the agricultural industry, and Somerset is one of the leading dairy counties of the country. We had floods last year, but this spring has produced a later and lower nutritious-value grass crop. I have obtained figures from the Milk Marketing Board and they show that the April gallonage for this year is down by 8 million on last year, although cow numbers are up by 100,000. This proves that the grass man has suffered as badly as the arable man.
The dairy man has had two disasters running; last year foot-and-mouth, which affected not just the infected areas but spread well into the rest of the country, and this year a cold late spring. Otherwise I believe that we should have had a glut of liquid milk, which would have reduced the price.
In my constituency we have the village of Cheddar, which is famous not only for the Gorge but for its excellent cheese. One would have thought that the glut of milk could have been used to make cheese. However, last week I received a letter from the Cheddar and Caerphilly Farmhouse Cheesemakers' Federation saying:
English Cheddar Cheese has only been made in a quantity which it was estimated could fill the gap left by the foreign supplies. Since foreign dumping and price cutting continues, it seems likely that the home-producer of milk can expect to see himself at best restricted and at worst obliged to fill an even smaller part of the home market for cheese.
This is not just mousetrap but the finest farmhouse cheese in the world.
Agriculture has an unrivalled history of productivity and, until recently, technical progress enabled it to keep pace with ever-rising costs. I detect, however, a levelling off in this technical improvement, not just in the cereal and dairy industries but across the board. I hope that when the Minister considers the next Price Review the so-called efficiency factor will be removed forever.
The banks have operated as fairly as they can with the farming community, but one cannot, by the slightest stretch of the imagination, expect them, under the present pressure, to extend new credit for expansion, this at a time when expansion is the lifeblood of any industry. The return on capital investment in farming


is only too acutely apparent as being inadequate to cover the natural disasters about which we have heard today.
For some time I have likened the British farmer to a man who is climbing an escalator which is travelling downwards. He runs to stand still. What is so tragic is that those who run the fastest, who are technically advanced and who have borrowed the money are at the greatest risk and will be the first to become exhausted. Friends of mine in farming tell me that the situation bears unhappy parallels with the early 'thirties. I hope that I do not damage my case by being over-pessimistic. Suffice to say that I have reduced my farming interests and would like to leave the rigours of that industry for the comparative peace of politics.

5.27 p.m.

Mr. Bert Hazell: It is with pleasure that I speak following our new political colleague, the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin). I assure him that I appreciate the trepidation he experienced as he waited to be called to make his maiden speech. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides look forward to hearing him make further contributions to our agriculture debates and will wish him well in the new career which he has staked out for himself.
We all regret the reason for the hon. Gentleman being here: the tragic death of his predecessor, who was cut off in the prime of a promising political career. His death came as a shock to the whole House. I am sure that all hon. Members will wish to join the new hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare in expressing sympathy to the family of Mr. David Webster, who can recall with pride the active part which he took while he was among us.
It is right that we should give close consideration to certain aspects of agriculture. I particularly have in mind the position that has been created by the almost unprecedented lengthy period of wet weather. This is a narrow line along which to debate the problems of agriculture, particularly as it is some time since the House debated the industry in general. Considering the Government's attitude towards the industry over the

last five years, I believe that they have endeavoured to be helpful to British agriculture.
I was interested to note that the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) did not blame the Government for the weather. However, he went on to blame them for almost everything else, and did his best to include the weather in his criticism. No Government can be responsible for weather conditions, and it would be wrong for a Government to take advantage of good weather as for them to be blamed for bad weather. All of us who have had experience in agriculture over the years deplore that such vast areas remain uncultivated this year because it has been impossible to use machines and equipment on rain-sodden land.
I am not so sure, however, that the fact that much land will be laid fallow is of itself a bad thing. If it is dealt with rightly and if advantage is taken of the summer period, the fact that some of the land is lying bare might rid it of some of the diseases to which some crops have been subject over the years. Greater production from our land could be assisted as a consequence of certain areas being uncropped this year.
Our agriculture industry is among the most unsophisticated agriculture industries in the world, but for various reasons, shortage of labour, lack of finance, or just hoping that all will be well, some elementary factors in British agriculture have tended to be ignored in recent years. I refer particularly to land drainage. Like other hon. Members, when going round farms I have been amazed to see the number of pipe tiled drainage systems which have become blocked. We see evidence of this in areas which are not necessarily subject to flooding or heavy rainfall. In the middle of a field one sees a big bare wet patch. It is obvious to anyone in agriculture that it is due to the lack of tiles in that field. We have tended to ignore our drainage system, although I agree that the cost of drainage is very great.
If the Minister could have another look at the drainage grants he would be doing a good service to the industry, not just in the short-term but in the long-term. This would be a helpful approach in a problem which has gradually grown in recent years. We have had the development of the larger field to cope with


heavy equipment coming on to farms. Then I have seen too many ditches filled with pipes which are inadequate to carry the volume of water that should be carried. I wonder if the Ministry's inspectors, when approving schemes which involve filling in dykes, take sufficient care to see that the pipes are large enough to deal with the volume of water likely to flow through them. There is also the problem when a good farmer looks after his ditches and his tiled drainage but near him, for a variety of reasons, another farmer fails to tackle the problem and then the water cannot get away. Everyone in farming knows this situation very well.
The time has arrived for the Minister to look at the whole question of drainage powers related to internal drainage boards and the inadequacy of funds to see whether pressure can be brought to deal with cases of neglect. However much one tries to cultivate land, if it is flooded, or very wet, one's efforts to achieve a crop become almost futile. This season much land which has been drilled ought never to have been drilled. That has been done to secure acreage subsidies. I can understand the farmer considering that there is a chance for him to obtain some income, but when one looks at some fields which have very thin and yellow crops it is obvious that they ought never to have been sown. One only hopes that the weather will be sufficiently kind from now until harvest time to enable the grain to recover.
I wonder how many of the propositions put forward by the right hon. Member for Grantham would be implemented by him if he were the Minister, in view of the avowed intention of the Tories to cut public expenditure. I wonder how much practical sympathy the Tories would show to the industry. I am satisfied that the amount of support forthcoming for agriculture were hon. Members opposite in power would not be on the scale it has been in the last four or five years. I remind the House that they agreed with the N.F.U. to take some account of increasing productivity within the industry. We cannot cut public expenditure while at the same time handing out largesse to agriculture, in social insurance, and what-have-you. The right hon. Gentleman would find himself in some difficulty if he were a Minister in carrying out some of

the suggestions he has made in view of the avowed policy of the Opposition.
One problem that arises in tackling land drainage is the need for skilled operatives. We are becoming woefully short of skilled men in this kind of work. It is comparatively easy to drain land where there is a fall, but it is a highly experienced and skilled job to drain land which is virtually flat. I hope that my right hon. Friend will make sure that there is sufficient manpower available to deal with what I hope will become a great increase in the use of machinery and equipment to develop drainage systems. I hope that he will give further consideration to the heavy cost involved, thus helping to maintain and to improve fertility over a long period, and to enable us through adequate drainage to cope with such heavy rainfall as we experience from time to time.

5.40 p.m.

Mr. Paul Hawkins: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) on his maiden speech. It is a good thing that there is now another practical farmer who can give the House the benefit of his advice, and I hope that he will do so on many occasions.
I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell) that any farmers have drilled merely for the acreage payment. He should not have made that suggestion. It is much too expensive to prepare the land and put in good seed merely to get the acreage payment and not a decent crop.
I have drawn up a list of points to raise as a result of my having gone over many farms in my area. High Norfolk—the lighter lands—has not been so badly hit as the fringe of my constituency has been going towards Wisbech and Holbeach and Holland in Lincolnshire. From July, 1968 to a fortnight ago we had almost continual rain, with few breaks of fine weather. Farm profits, particularly where the soil is heavy, must be very low for 1967–68. Many farms will show a loss. The bad harvest conditions last autumn resulted in the land being killed by carting over, with resulting appalling seed beds for potato and sugar beet in the spring. When the Minister made his Price Review, planting and drilling were already far behind. In announcing the


Price Review, the Minister called attention to last year's bad harvest and said:
But with average conditions this year, output, productivity and income are expected to improve."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th March, 1969; Vol. 779, c. 515.]
In a question to the Minister I pointed out that, due to the bad weather conditions this spring, we were already three or four weeks behind. In a cereal, sugar beet and potato-growing area, a lag of three or four weeks means that there will not be a full crop, whatever happens later. The Minister paid no attention to that. I drew attention also to the severe cuts in the sugar beet acreage in the Eastern counties. There are rumours that there will be further cuts this coming year to enable the sugar beet industry in Scotland to have a fuller acreage. We import about 50,000 tons of refined sugar from non-Commonwealth sources, the equivalent to the yield from about 25,000 acres. The one thing the Minister could do today would be to announce there would be no further cuts in East Anglia's sugar beet acreage for the coming year and that the sugar beet factories, which are being expanded in my area, can have a greater acreage in coming years as a result of the import of non-Commonwealth sugar being reduced. Sugar beet is a crop which is excellent for the arable lands in eastern England. We produce exceptionally good crops. I very much hope that we shall be allowed to grow to our full capacity. It is an alternative crop to cereal growing and means much to our area.
Last Saturday during a 20-mile journey from Peterborough to Wisbech I noticed many fields of potatoes still in the ground from last year. They were endeavouring to try to spin them out. The barley was yellow and stunted. The potato rows which had been planted this year were standing in water. Weeds absolutely abound on much of this land. It will be a terrible year for weed control. Profits for the second year running must be minimal on some of this land, although it is £350–£400 an acre land. With the rent paid for such land, it is very difficult to make a profit on a farm which has a proportion which will never be cropped and a large proportion which will have only half crops.
We have had two bad years on top of each other. Interest rates have been

increased rapidly. Overdraft increases have been refused, or there has been an attempt to reduce overdrafts. Everyone else in the industry who used to lend money to farmers, or allow money to stand over for some time—for example, agricultural merchants and auctioneers—are themselves being pushed by the banks and cannot afford to lend money as they did in the past.
This has shown itself in many ways. In my area, and in East Anglia as a whole, there are many more farms on sale this year than in any one year since the end of the war. Farmers' sons, and indeed whole families, as well as contractors and others, are emigrating. There is a general lack of confidence in the industry, which I have not known since the 1930s. The policy of expansion has already been knocked off course.
Bankruptcy might be avoided for not only the farming community, but for a large part of England and Wales as well, if some of the following steps were taken. The Minister spoke about income tax. It sounded alright to me. It did not sound as if the Minister perfectly understood it, but I hope that it will prove to be very satisfactory. I had intended to suggest an averaging of income tax demands over three years. The payment of outstanding Government grants should be speeded up. There are far too many Government grants outstanding for from three to six months. They should be paid over immediately, thus providing some necessary cash to farmers.
I have already advocated an increase in the sugar beet acreage. This is vital to East Anglia. We are already growing too many potatoes. We have too much eelworm. We have too many corn crops. Take all and other diseases are on the increase because of this continued cereal growing. I have never been in favour of too much cereal growing. There must be some stock on a farm if the farm is to be farmed properly.
An immediate increase in bank credit facilities is probably one of the most important steps which could be taken. It is no good the Minister telling us, as he has for the past twelve months, that he has spoken to the banks. A letter should be published so that every farmer knows what the banks have been told. Whether the letter comes from the Prime


Minister or from the Bank of England—[Interruption.] My colleagues do not put much faith in a letter from the Prime Minister. Let it come from the Governor of the Bank of England to the other banks, which seem to take notice of the Bank of England and which, I understand, lend money almost interest free to the Bank of England. On this occasion, perhaps the Bank of England could let us have back the money which has been lent to the central bank in order to provide interest-free loans. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) said, it would be an excellent scheme to give interest-free loans for a short period to help tide over the many farmers who might otherwise go bankrupt.
The Government must do something during the next month or two. Now is the time when people make decisions about whether to sell their farms. This is the time when they decide to give up their tenancies. Many farmers will be deciding, or have already decided, that, unless better things are promised by the Government to give them hope for the next two or three years that their farms will remain viable and they will be able to pay their bills, they will have to sell their farms.
I have suggested an immediate special Price Review. I still think that there is a lot to be said for it. If the Minister were to get down to it immediately with the National Farmers' Union, they could within a month hammer out a scheme for special help for the industry. But if we cannot have that, the Minister must seriously consider my right hon. Friend's scheme, and he should have published in the Press for all to see a letter from the Governor of the Bank of England making clear to the other banks that there can be proper credit facilities for all farmers.

5.51 p.m.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I welcome the debate and readily endorse much of what was said by the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) about the serious effects for farmers of the appalling weather which we have suffered in recent years. None of us can be unmindful of the acute difficulties encountered, especially in some of our most important arable areas. My hon. Friend

the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell) was right to emphasise the growing importance of land drainage. The House should give more attention to the problem of improving and extending land drainage. It may seem a dull subject to some, but it can be of crucial importance for the future expansion of the industry and of our economy.
All of us share the chagrin and concern already expressed in the debate, not least by the right hon. Member for Grantham, but I take it that the right hon. Gentleman welcomes the emphasis put by my right hon. Friend the Minister on doing everything reasonable to meet the difficulties and hardships which have been encountered. I agree with my right hon. Friend, who was the author of the most interesting dictum we have heard in the debate so far, that it is easy to be virtuous in opposition. I hope, indeed I believe, that the right hon. Gentleman will live in virtue for a long time yet. The right hon. Gentleman is, of course, prone to underestimate the benefits which have flowed from the agricultural policies of the present Government since 1964. But he ought at least to appreciate that this Government have been more generous in their first five Reviews than were their predecessors in the preceding five years.
The right hon. Gentleman became heavily party political at times, and I rather expected him to go on to what many people now regard as his obsession. He has spoken again and again in the country, though less frequently in the House, of his liking for the levy system. One has the impression from him that, if only we had levies on food imports, our agriculture would have none of the problems which we are debating today, even including the British climate. The right hon. Gentleman ought to have taken the opportunity to spell out in more detail what his policy would mean for British farmers, for the British consumer, and for some of our traditional suppliers in the Commonwealth.
I feel strongly that we should stop denigrating our system of agricultural support and try to avoid any grovelling acceptance of the much less successful systems of some other countries and groups of countries. Since the mid-1950s, our system has increased the volume of net output of British agriculture by about


40 per cent. That is an outstanding achievement. The level of support given to our agriculture in the post-war years, while considerable, has nevertheless always allowed for the importation of competing produce. By placing the financial burden on the Exchequer, our support scheme has enabled the British housewife to purchase her food at competitive prices. It has given all British consumers access to high quality food at reasonable cost.
As a result of the deficiency payments system for British agriculture, consumers have had to spend far less on food than their counterparts in, for example, the European Common Market. This has meant that British people have had more to spend on other goods and services than would have been the case had the United Kingdom pursued a dear food policy. As a result, the living standards of the British people are higher than they would have been under a system which pushed up food costs. At the same time, the system has been helpful to British agriculture in making the achievements to which I have referred.

Mr. Hawkins: rose—

Mr. Morris: The hon. Gentleman said that he would be brief, knowing that other hon. Members wished to take part. I, too, shall try to be as brief as I can.
In every-day terms, the policy advocated by the right hon. Member for Grantham means that the British housewife and consumer will be forced to pay higher prices for food. His levy proposals are similar to the present disastrous agricultural policy of the European Economic Community. The results of that policy are too well known to require elaboration from me. Not only is the policy appallingly expensive for the Common Market, but farmers in many other countries are suffering seriously from the dumping of surpluses created by the common agricultural policy of the E.E.C.
Here is just one illustration—it has not been mentioned before—coming from Hong Kong. E.E.C. butter is now being sold there at approximately 1s. 6d. per 1b. on which the E.E.C. has already paid an export subsidy of approximately 4s. 6d. That is one example of the distortion which has occurred as a result

of the E.E.C.s levy system. In the face of high subsidisation of this kind, it will be appreciated that such honoured suppliers of this country as New Zealand are encountering serious difficulties as a traditional exporter of dairy produce. Moreover, the House might well reflect on the fact that last year, on average, every New Zealander spent some £60 on the purchase of goods and services from Britain. The comparable figure of British purchases from New Zealand amounted to just under £4 per head.
One of the claims made by the right hon. Gentleman and others for his levy scheme is that it would prevent the dumping of subsidised produce. I believe that there is already in existence adequate machinery to deal with dumping if Governments are prepared to take action. The British Government have already done so on cereals without altering the basis of the present support system. I see no need for the imposition of this new system of high prices and variable levies on all imports to cope with the problem.
The imposition of levies on imports of New Zealand dairy produce and meat would drastically push up the price of these commodities and in turn would lead to a significant fall in their consumption. It is hard for many of us to believe that the people of Britain would endorse a system which would have such serious consequences for the British consumer and for New Zealand and other traditional suppliers.
I have referred particularly to New Zealand, having recently had the pleasure, with other hon. Members, of renewing my acquaintance with the President and the General Secretary of the Federated Farmers of New Zealand. I am glad that this debate has followed so soon upon their recent visit to this country.
I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has recognised that the vicissitudes of our weather are not the responsibility of the Government. That is one modest concession. However, right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite ought to be reminded that they have far too often sought to argue not positive alternative policies but to spread pessimism and gloom throughout British agriculture. I hope that they will now try to desist from this and recognise that those who have had the


heavy responsibility of ministerial office in the Department during the life of the present Government have served the industry and the country extremely well.

6.4 p.m.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) is not in his place at the moment, because I want to add my congratulations to him on his maiden speech. I have a special reason for doing so as he served his political apprenticeship in my constituency. I trust that we shall hear a good deal from him in the future.
This is necessarily a short debate, but it is a very important one. Agriculture is in a crisis year. Auctioneers in my constituency tell me that there are more farms entered for sale in September and October of this year than they can cope with, and the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) has referred to a similar state of affairs in his county.
It is true that the Government cannot be blamed for the weather. Even the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) could not take his criticism of the Government that far. Nevertheless, the crisis stems from a complete lack of confidence in the future of the industry. The truth is that the margin between solvency and insolvency in agriculture is extremely narrow at present. Following a series of bad events such as the foot-and-mouth epidemic, which had a serious effect not only on those whose stock suffered but on those who traditionally supply stores and could not do so, followed by a bad harvest, a wet, long and cold winter, and a long and difficult spring with heavy fodder charges, that margin is quickly taken up. This is where the Government have a vitally important responsibility.
The Minister has asked us not to spread pessimism and gloom. No one would want to do that, but it is right to say that hon. Members on both sides would like the Government to give a better deal to agriculture. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite have to fight within their own party to get a good deal. Right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the House have to do the same. The clash of interests often is not across the Floor of the House but between the agricultural interest and the industrial

interest, and we should do well to remember that in a debate of this kind. Bringing party political arguments excessively into such a debate as this does not help the situation or the farming industry.
Perhaps it would help the Minister if I quoted from a letter of 13th June of this year which I received from the county secretary of the Montgomery County Branch of the National Farmers' Union. He is an extremely level-headed individual, and he writes:
Farmers in the County seem to be completely demoralised at present. No doubt the weather has not helped, particularly when one reviews the conditions that they have had to put up with for the past year. … The recent threatened increase in Bank Rate could well prove to be the last straw for farmers who are already unable to make two ends meet. Many other farmers who are already delving deeply into their rapidly dwindling capital will need to look very seriously into their future prospects.
As I said when we debated the Price Review, there have been many worse, but there have been some better ones. It was not a bad Review. However, the real problem is that young farmers particularly have been encouraged by the Agricultural Advisory Service to increase productivity in order to make ends meet, to meet agricultural targets, and so on, and various margins have been suggested as to the profits that they might make. To do that, they have to borrow money. As a result of the increase in Bank Rate, they find themselves having to pay 9½ per cent. interest. If, then, they are affected by adverse weather conditions, they are driven to the wall and we lose many of the most enterprising farmers in the country. That is the crisis point which has been reached.
Apart from what I have read, I know nothing of conditions in East Anglia and other parts of the country which have been affected by waterlogging. I know only of the crisis in my constituency on both lowland and highland farms, and the effect that it has had on both pastoral and arable farmers. The industrious secretary of the County Branch of the Farmers' Union of Wales tells me how sheep farmers have been affected by the adverse weather experienced in the past year. More sheep go through Welshpool market than through any other market in Wales. During May of this year 27 per cent. fewer lambs and couples went through that market than in May of last year, and


it is feared that it may fall by as much as 40 per cent.
There have been very great ewe losses throughout the year, in addition to considerable lamb losses. I have had a word with my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel), because I have noticed in Scotland that there seem to be a great many ewes to only a few lambs in the Border areas. My hon. Friend tells me that the experience has been the same there as in my area, so it appears that this is probably true across the board on Hill land. This may seriously affect the Minister's estimates of production figures over the next three or four years. It is already seriously affecting the livelihoods and prospects of many farmers in hill areas and the crisis is not to be regarded only as one which affects lowland or arable farmers.
I suggest to the Minister that for sheep farmers either there should be additional winter keep grants for this year because of the very difficult conditions, or that the subsidy for ewes might be based either on last year's figures, or that ewe lambs should be admitted into the subsidy scheme for this year in order to encourage farmers to keep ewe lambs rather than grade them, and so increase the national flock. That will also give farmers an opportunity to catch up and prevent their being affected too adversely this year.
If we have reasonable weather for the rest of the year, the effect of the right hon. Gentleman's Review may be to restore the position to some extent. However, it must not be forgotten that farmers face a crisis at present, and they need to have their confidence restored now. It is not a matter of hon. Members spreading pessimism. The pessimism is felt deeply among the farming community. Although the Minister has announced some measures which will be of help, they are not enough. He must show that he appreciates the problem and how it affects individual farmers in the hill areas as well as in arable areas. They need a positive gesture along the lines that I have suggested.

6.12 p.m.

Mr. John P. Mackintosh: I am glad to follow the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), because I agree

with a great deal of what he has said, particularly when he draws attention to the problems of the sheep flock and the low lambing rates. In addition, he has done a service in reducing the political content of the debate. I always like the speeches of the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber), but he mars them with political claptrap. He is always telling the House how much more happened in some year in the 1950s than in another year in the 1960s, none of which is of interest to farmers who are facing conditions today. The right hon. Gentleman's policies for agriculture certainly have not decreased the lack of confidence in the industry. If anything, they have done a great deal to increase the pessimism of farmers about the future. I know that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) has been struggling round Scotland attempting, with little success, to reduce the worry which is felt by farmers about Conservative policies.
What we have to do is to concentrate on the agricultural situation today and the possible remedies. For that reason, I want to add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) on his maiden speech. He said that he was happy to give up the uncertainties of farming for the greater certainties of political life. Sitting for the constituency that he represents, I can understand his point of view. However, others of us feel a closer identity with the shakier members of the farming community.
This has been a very difficult year tot farmers. The winter was a bad one, and on top of it an unduly wet, cold late spring has done a great deal of damage. There is a practical point in agricultural policy upon which I would like the Parliamentary Secretary's comments. The assumption in paragraph 10 of the Annual Price Review is that weather is a factor that averages out; a good year is a bonus to the farmers, a bad year a loss. It does not seem to be the case. A good year for farmers means that there are good crops and income may well rise, but it does not make the total situation any different from the following year, except from the matter of income. If there is a bad year, with late breeding among flocks of sheep, and waterlogged land, if farmers get into a


backward position it is much harder the next year to get the 30 per cent. efficiency rise which is always calculated.
It is not true to say that a good year balances out a bad year in this way. The Price Review says:
With anything like average conditions in 1969, not only should last year's setback be restored but income should improve further".
The assumption is that we will not merely catch up on a bad year but go ahead. My argument is that it is harder to catch up on the bad year, and there is less chance of going ahead at the end of an average year. This is not adequately considered when making year by year calculations.
There is also the fact that we have not had an average year. In view of what has happened until this month 1969 will not be an average year. Given this situation, will the Parliamentary Secretary tell me how the Ministry estimates now look as compared with the estimates put into the present Price Review? We estimated an increase of costs for the year of £40 million. Will that increase in costs be exceeded because of the increased rate of interest farmers have to pay—because of the extra costs of the food bill to meet the difficulties in getting animals out to grassland as a result of the late spring? Dealing with the efficiency factor, I assume that there was virtually no 30 per cent. efficiency factor in 1968, increase in productivity and so on. Is it not the case that we are now saying that this will not happen this year either? Does this not mean that the calculations on which the March Price Review were made are totally out of date and unsatisfactory?
I am grateful to the Minister for explaining what he anticipates will be the short-fall on cereal production this year. Can he tell us what he thinks will be the short-fall in potato production and other root crop yields? How far is the lambing down this year compared with the estimates? This problem of bad weather has affected much more widespread sectors of the industry than just the disaster areas, greater though their problems are.
If the answers to my points show a special situation and that the Ministry's programme of expansion is not being achieved, I would have thought that the answer was an attempt to inject some

capital into the industry. The problem is not: has there been a disaster? A disaster is difficult to calculate. How great is something serious before it becomes a disaster? It may be a disaster for certain farmers in different parts of the country. What has happened is that there has been a disaster in certain limited areas.
Much more serious in the national sense is that the farm expansion programme on which the Minister embarked, and for which I congratulate him, and for which all of us support him, depended on investment from farmers out of income. If anything was established by the Select Committee on which I had the honour to serve before it was closed down, it was that the investment in agriculture came out of farming income and if income dropped so did investment. What troubles me is that the results of a bad year in 1968 and a bad spring in 1969 have been that income failed to rise—I would be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary will say whether it rose in 1969. If it did not rise in these years the level of investment in the industry cannot reach the rate which the Minister hoped for and must now be out of the question. This affects more than agriculture; it is damaging to the nation because of the increased import bill we will have to face.
What do we do about this? The right hon. Member for Grantham offered various solutions and his own scheme. I do not support his scheme or like it, because any scheme which attempts to draw a line between those who suffer hardship and those who do not gets into tremendous difficulties about where to draw the line. There will be hard cases on one side or the other, and I believe that this kind of hardship can be at different levels throughout the country. I want the Minister to go back to his colleagues on the Cabinet Committee which settled the Price Review and reopen the argument. I appreciate that the Minister did everything he could to get a cost plus Price Review last March and that he wanted a far bigger injection of capital than took place.
I know that a mere £10 million extra would have got us an agreed Price Review, with a very different atmosphere in the industry. The argument put forward by the Minister on that occasion was lost, to the regret of all of us who wish to see the industry develop and go in for adequate import substitution.
We do not want to speak in melodramatic terms about a disaster, or to spread pessimism, but we want to get the industry back on the expansion programme for which the Government are pressing. The arguments made by the Minister for a higher capital injection, which were lost in the spring of last year, should be reopened. The solution to this is a little more on the end prices of the agricultural commodities. This is the best way of putting money into agriculture. I can understand why the right hon. Member for Grantham, who does not believe in price guarantees and wants them abolished, could not advocate this, but it is by far the best way of putting money into the industry and we need this done if we are to restore confidence, and the Minister's own admirable programme of expansion.

6.27 p.m.

Mr. Richard Body: I agree with a large part of the analysis made by the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh). If he had pushed his conclusions a little further he would have arrived at the same policy as my right hon. Friend. During the last two years arable farmers have taken a considerable knocking, and they will continue to do so. These knocks are not just caused by appalling weather conditions, but also by the system of efficiency payments.
The combination of these two factors is likely to bring about a disaster in the arable sector. Successive Governments have been besotted by a policy of cheap food and agriculture has been denied the measure of protection which is afforded to every other industry without exception. The only support agriculture has had has been the system of efficiency payments. We all know that almost every year these payments have not matched the increased costs of the industry.
Farm prices as a whole are slightly less than they were 15 years ago, yet the price of food in the shops has risen by nearly 10s. in the £ in that period. The farmer has not received his share of that increase. His costs have mounted every year, wages have risen and higher prices have been paid for fertilisers, feeding stuffs and everything else that he buys. The cost of capital items like machinery, also have

increased in price, yet the cost of borrowing capital has risen to unprecedented heights.
In these conditions the farmer is surviving only because he has forced up, and I use the phrase deliberately, productivity. If the cost of growing a ton of barley has risen by one-third, he has forced up yield by the same proportion. The same is true with almost every other arable crop. It is one of the marvels of our time that the productivity of some of our arable crops has increased by 4 per cent., 5 per cent., and even 6 per cent. every year over recent years. The cumulative gain is almost incredible.
The armchair farmers in Whitehall are utterly complacent and believe that his process of cumulative gain will go on indefinitely. They are wrong. They are wrong because many farmers have had to flog their land and flogging a heritage passed down from our forebears. We have been flogging this land in some of the arable areas by taking far too much out and by drugging our acres with more and more chemicals, and sometimes rather too much poison on the land. Before the hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Derek Page)calls me a fuddy duddy, let me hasten to say that if it were not for Fisons, I.C.I. and Shell and some of the others, almost every farmer, including myself, would be bankrupt.
Chemicals have their place and without them we could not have had the productivity that we have achieved. However, there is a growing amount of evidence, particularly in these arable areas, and I think the hon. Member would agree with me here, that these processes are in danger of impairing the structure of our soil. It is in this context that we should consider present weather conditions, because when the soil structure is impaired in this way it cannot withstand excessive rainfall, frost or, if it comes, excessive sunshine. This is the hazard now facing farmers in some arable areas.

Mr. Hooson: Down to grass.

Mr. Body: The hon. and learned Member (Mr. Hooson) anticipates me. That was what I was about to urge.
This is the obvious remedy, but it is out of the question for the ordinary arable farmer, particularly in East Anglia to put his land down to grass in


present conditions. It is not practical to switch over to grassland and animal husbandry unless one masters the modern skills of stockmanship. There is no profit at all in stock unless a farmer is a specialist. The arable farmer cannot afford to go over to grass, even for a short ley. I hope that the Minister does not need to be persuaded of that.
I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend's conclusion that there is a desperate need for cash for the farmers, but in the short term there should be grants to enable farmers whose soil structure is in danger of being impaired to go over to one, two or three-year leys to restore the vigour of the land, to help it to withstand the kind of bad weather that we have had.
There can be only one solution in the long term. Farmers will go on being forced to flog their land until we abandon deficiency payments and have in their place realistic and encouraging target prices in a system of import levies.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: I ask your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to say one thing which is entirely out of order. I should like to congratulate the Joint Parliamentary Secretary—he is not on the Government Front Bench—on the honour that was done him during the weekend. I feel that I have the right to crave that indulgence as his Member of Parliament.
I should like to say something uncontroversial, and that is how much we enjoyed the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin). He spoke with considerable knowledge. He is one of the select band of agriculturists in the House who farm not only in England, but in Scotland. We are very pleased that, with all his knowledge and authority, he has joined the ranks of those who battle, often with great frustration, against the Government's activities. I hope that we shall hear from him many times again.
I was extremely disappointed with the Minister's speech. This is a disaster year, not just a bad year, for some people. I know that the right hon. Gentleman drew a distinction, and I am the first to recognise that a bad harvest or a bad spring is one of the hazards of farming,

and that this is something which one can put up with. But the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, on his own admission, has seen this year some of the worst conditions that he has seen for 43 years, and that takes into account 1947, which was treated by the party then in power as a disaster year.
This is not a long-term problem. The Minister spent too much time in trying to tell us that it was. I do not think that the selective expansion programme is relevant to this debate. This is a desperate, short-term problem for some people. I was glad that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) referred to the fact that not only the arable areas have been affected, although they have carried the worst of the burden. I should not like it to be thought that in this context Scotland or Wales is a place
Where falls not hail, or rain, or any snow, Nor ever wind blows loudly …
Lambing conditions in the North have been disastrous, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will say something about them. I have heard that lambing losses to the extent of 20 per cent. have been by no means uncommon over substantial areas. I have been told of a 450 hirsel which has been virtually wiped out—ewes and lambs, the lot. Weather could account for variations between areas, but there have been colossal variations within areas. Probably the most important factor has been whether there was shelter on the farm.
There have been what one might call previous disasters. There was on 6th September, 1966, a gale which acted like a scythe on the barley crop in the North of Scotland. A quarter, and possibly a third, of the crop—£4 million worth—was irretrievably put on the ground in one night. In 1947, there were floods and snow, and areas were waterlogged. Then 1,140,000 ewes and 2 million lambs were lost.
What is to be done to deal with the present plight? A special review has been mentioned. The hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) hinted along those lines. A special review probably could take place on the strict conditions which are laid down if Ministers are satisfied that there has been a sudden and substantial change in production costs since the last annual


review. I dare say that that could be justified. But this would not be the right vehicle, because, despite the disasters which have affected individuals, an award cannot be confined to those people—not out of a Price Review.
Could the loss be spread over two or three years for tax purposes? The Minister offered people the possibility of paying tax by instalments. He also said that any farmer unfortunate enough to make a trading loss could apply to have his assessment based on the previous year's profit reduced by the amount of such loss, thus reducing or even extinguishing his tax liability. If that can be done now, there is nothing new about it. If it cannot be done now, is it intended to change the law so that it can be done?
I took professional advice on this matter this morning, because there were what I might describe as inspired leaks that this was one of the things which the Minister would say. My information is that, under income tax law, a loss can only be carried forward and the value of so doing depends to a substantial extent on the personal allowances of the taxpayer involved. To some, it would be of considerable advantage. To others, it would be of little advantage. But I am informed that under the present law losses for this year and last year cannot be offset until a profit is made. They can merely be carried forward until the next profitable year, when they can be offset.
It would be useful if people could offset present losses against previous profits and get a repayment of tax, because it is cash which is needed. If that is what the Minister meant to say, perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would make it clear. There is a legislative vehicle available for doing this. A new Clause could be introduced into the Finance Bill. The Treasury lost little time in legislating after the successful activities of Professor Korner, in February. Therefore, there would be little excuse for the Treasury not introducing legislation if the Minister regards it as necessary. Cash, however, is absolutely essential, and I am indeed hopeful, since the right hon. Gentleman did say that he would consider, without any commit-

ment, the suggestion made by my right hon. Friend.
Let me remind the House of the action which was taken in 1947. Let me also remind the House that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary who is to wind up the debate has said that this is a worse year than that one; it must be, because, he said, these were the worst conditions he has known in 43 years. In 1947, in respect of hill land—this is something which one should remember as a possibility of action for animal crops—subsidy was paid for 1946 and 1947 on the numbers in 1946 before the disaster ever took place.
Therefore, it would not be impossible to give the same kind of treatment to the acreage payments. There was an advance subsidy payment. Let us remember that the hill ewe subsidy at that time was only 8s. 9d. An advance subsidy payment was immediately made of 5s. to put some cash into people's pockets. There was a scheme called the goods and services scheme for restocking. Rates of interest have changed, but the rate of interest then was 5 per cent. from the joint stock banks and the finance of restocking was reduced by the Government to 2½ per cent.
What was done then could be done again. If the Government decline to take that sort of action, then I shall be obliged to throw back to the right hon. Gentleman the taunt he makes about virtue in opposition, and I shall be obliged to say to him, if he takes no action along the lines for which there are precedents for taking action, that he is not being virtuous even in government.
The right hon. Gentleman is reported as having asked the banks not to press for repayment of overdrafts but to give credit facilities, and he said that he has been assured that the banks will, as usual give what help they can. Are the banks able to comply with his request? They are—are they not?—tied to their ceiling. Indeed, as has been stated this afternoon already, they have paid considerable penalties when they exceeded it. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give a specific answer to this: is it not the case that the Government were asked that farming should be taken out from under the global ceiling and put into the special position which applies to certain exporters, and


that the request was refused? Is not this a true statement of fact?
The basic trouble is that agriculture has been bled white of liquid cash. We have had various points made about the excellence of the last five Reviews. I am bound to make the point which I made in the debate a few weeks ago, and which the Secretary of State completely declined to face, that it seems to me that the industry's plight is entirely the responsibility of the Government, because in the last four Reviews the net income to the industry—and that is, at the end of the day, the vital factor for the net income is what the farmers are left with to spend—has gone up by only £5 million, compared with £85 million in the previous four, all of which have been criticised to death by the right hon. Gentleman and his friends.
I will not wax depressive and gloomy, but there is tremendous uncertainty, and there is desperate effort to try to contain rising costs. I noticed the run of costs on my own farm in the six-month period to May: in 1965, they were £1,300; in 1966, £1,100; in 1967, £1,500; in 1968, £1,100; in 1969, £1,700, an increase of 36 per cent. over the last year. This is the kind of thing which farmers are finding it so difficult to contend with.
I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman has asked his colleagues once again to help against the inflexibility of the Treasury, but, once again, from all appearances, he has failed. No matter the disaster, no matter that his expansion programme has been distorted, as he described it to the N.E.D.C. when he went to talk to it, we are up against the Government's attitude as expressed by the Prime Minister in reply to Questions on 8th May this year. The general trend of the Prime Minister's replies was, "No more subsidies for home expansion, no import substitution, because that would mean higher subsidies or prices, but, of course, agriculture is ready and willing to help".
Unless we can get rid of this complete double thinking of which not only the Prime Minister but the Government are masters there is very little chance for agriculture to do the job which it is crying out to do.

6.46 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Mackie): Like everyone

else, I should like to start by congratulating the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) on his maiden speech, and, also like all of us, to say how sorry we were at the early death of Mr. David Webster. I am sure that we would all like to express our sympathy with his family, as the hon. Member did.
I was intrigued, as were other hon. Members, by the hon. Member's remark that he had left the "rigours of agriculture"—I think he said—"for the comparative peace of politics". I once read a remark which was just the opposite, that the more one saw of politics the more one liked farming. When the hon. Member has been longer in politics he may, like me, get the best of both worlds, by farming in the morning and having politics in the afternoon—if he can find a farm near enough to London.
It is customary, after a maiden speech, for hon. Members to say of the new Member that they look forward to hearing him again. I always think that is slightly hypocritical, because I have noticed that most hon. Members are wondering, when somebody else is speaking, when that hon. Member will sit down and give them a chance to get in. Nevertheless, I was delighted to hear the hon. Member today and I am sure that he will add a lot to our debates in the future.
Today's debate has been a very mixed and interesting one. If I may say so, not a lot new has been said on the position in agriculture as a whole, compared with what was said in the debate we had three months ago. Of course, most hon. Members have dealt with the trouble arising from this appalling weather. I readily agree that I did make the remark to someone when I was in Lincolnshire that this was the worst weather I had experienced during all my 43 years in farming. Many farmers have suffered setbacks and some have suffered real hardship.
I must generalise a little. One bad year does not drive a farmer off the land any more than one good year makes him a reckless spendthrift. Good farmers make long-term assessments and middle-term plans. They do not live from one harvest to another, but make allowances for the ups and downs of the business—although I know that the downs over the past two years have hit many of us rather hard.
Our often stated, and constantly practised, policy has been to create a stable environment for farming over a stated period of time, that is at least until 1972–73. We have aimed for a balanced industry and balanced expansion, and made provision for the needs of such a programme.
In this year's Price Review we emphasised the key commodities for a balanced expansion and stated the period in which this could reasonably be achieved. Our programme must be judged by its achievements over the whole period and, although I have the deepest sympathy with those farmers who are up against it this year, we see no reason for a major alteration, or a major reassessment of our policy, at this stage.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) said that he did not think the expansion programme had anything to do with the debate, but it was his right hon. Friend who raised the issue in his opening remarks, and quoted figures of what Tory Governments have done. I have a fairly long experience of farming, and I think it fair to say that the imbalance which the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) mentioned was not created over the last four or five years, but a good while before that.
If one studies their Price Reviews and the increases in cereals with, apart from pigs, no increase in stock, one can point fairly at the Opposition and say that when they were in power they created this imbalance. It is giving us a fair headache to get the balance back again. A study of our Price Reviews will show what we are doing to get back to a proper balance in crop farming and stock farming which had it been properly kept, would have alleviated many of the difficulties of today.
The hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) need not wave his hand. He knows that there are many farmers who grew only grain this year. I have met a few of them, and so has the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball). They admit that, if only they had had a yard full of bullocks or a flock of sheep or cows, they would have had something to fall back on. The reason for the farmers' difficulties is the imbalance

which was created by the Opposition when they were in power.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh".] Hon. Members squeal very quickly when their toes are trodden on, but they know that I am right.
If I may deal with specific points which have been raised, as the right hon. Member for Grantham said, I have seen the area. I drove through it; I did not fly over it. I met farmers and I saw their difficulties, and I do not belittle their difficulties. He mentioned the income figures for farmers and took out of context a passage contained in the 1965 Price Review White Paper. He knows perfectly well that in a Price Review all aspects of farming are looked at.
The right hon. Gentleman estimated that £10 million might be saved because some areas would not claim the cereals subsidy. The subsidy has not been £10 an acre either for wheat or barley in the last few years, and there certainly are not 1 million acres for which a claim would not be made. The right hon. Gentleman overstated his estimate. It is true that this money will not have to be paid and there may be a case for seeing how it can be channelled into other uses. I will deal with his helpful suggestions later.
The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare raised the point I have been dealing with, of continual cereal growing and the need for other crops for break crops. We considered various crops and decided on beans. We are looking continuously at these matters, but up to this year we have decided that beans are the best crop.
The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare mentioned the profitability of dairy farming, but I do not want to go into details on that at the moment. He said that if more milk had been produced the price would have been lower and, because less milk has been produced the price is up. He cannot have it both ways. If he will look at this week's issue of the Farmers Weekly he will see what can be done in Scotland where, over the last five years, a fairly big farmer has greatly increased production and simultaneously lowered his costs. I do not know whether this is general, but, if the hon. Member is interested, it shows what can be done in other parts of the country. He must not think that we are going back to the 1930s, this is over-doing it,


as he will see if he takes account of the guarantees, and so on. I farmed through the 'thirties, as did other hon. Members.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell) dealt with the drainage problem. Drainage is one of the most important matters in agriculture. I do not know what we can do to push farmers, but this year should teach them the importance of good drainage. I happen to know that drainage contractors are up to their eyes in work and to push new drainage too hard might overload them.
The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) always talks about the highlands of Norfolk. I have great difficulty in finding them, but I presume that they are there. He wished us to have a look at the procedure for paying subsidies, to see if assistance could be given there. He was worried about rumours of a cut in sugar beet acreages. If these rumours are true we shall meet that situation if and when it arises. I agree with him that two bad years will prolong difficulties in controlling weeds.
The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West emphasised the necessity for credit and I will deal with the various points he made. I know that the banks have been very good to farmers, and I can give him the assurance which my right hon. Friend gave. If he knows of individual cases he should let us know and we will take them up.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) spoke when I was not here, but I have a note made by my right hon. Friend of what he said. He was not too pleased with Tory policy. Or with the E.E.C., which, I think, has not much to do with the debate.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) said that there was a lack of confidence and that more farms were up for sale. This was also mentioned by the hon. Member for Norfolk, South. I do not think that farmers are so demoralised as he suggests. I move about among farmers and I know that they have their difficulties, but I do not think that "demoralised" is the right word. He said that in some areas lambing was bad, and that in other areas it was good. This pinpoints our difficulty in saying which areas deserve help and which do not.
The hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) raised many points and I have difficulty in answering them all. He said that a good year did not necessarily balance out a bad year. This depends entirely on the farming. An experienced farmer would agree that if the farming is balanced, a loss on arable may be offset by a gain on stock. A farmer who goes in for monoculture will not make up in two good years what he loses in a bad year, but with a properly balanced farm there will always be compensation in a bad year.
In reply to his point about costs increasing after the Price Review, he knows that costs are always based on the past year and that the interest rates last year were higher than they were this year when the Price Review was determined. Costs are always calculated back.
The question of estimates is always difficult. Last year, in the first week of July, I would have said that I should have a record crop of barley and wheat. By the end of August I knew I should have the lowest crop for many years. Because of the weather we have had during the last 10 days, early potatoes could easily be a perfectly good crop this year. To make any estimate is very difficult at this stage.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West said that the difficulties were not only with arable areas. I think that he must have been exaggerating when he said that it would be a disaster for farmers who had only 20 per cent. lambing. He also mentioned serious calf losses. This debate has shown how difficult it is to pinpoint where individual help should be given. I have been down in Hampshire and in South-East Essex and in many other areas where crops are wonderful, and I am scared that the thunder showers will put crops down in my area. I have heard from some farmers of good lambings in some areas and of good calvings, while other farmers in other areas have hold me that the lambings and calvings have been bad.
The right hon. Member for Grantham dealt with a number of suggestions. He turned down the suggestion for another Price Review. We all know the difficulties. The hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian mentioned them, as did others. The right hon.


Member himself pointed to the difficulties of a fallow grant. He knows the difficulties, as we all do, about spreading tax losses. We ought all to study what the Minister has said, for it will be of considerable help. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West, but we should study the Minister's words in HANSARD. We will certainly see that the best is done to spread losses or profits to the advantage of those who may have had bad years.

Mr. Stodart: Is not the hon. Gentleman at least able to say whether what the Minister said about offsetting losses was new? If not, what is the value of what he said?

Mr. Mackie: Giving information, if nothing else. I think it is new that the Treasury is to look at the whole situation and to see where it can help in these cases.
As for improving drainage grants, I pointed out, as did the right hon. Member for Grantham, the difficulty of overloading drainage contractors, but we will certainly see whether we can speed up the technicalities of getting a grant.
Making advanced acreage payments is difficult because of the calculations which must be made before they can be paid, but we will certainly consider that too.
I have already mentioned bank credit. If hon. Members know of any creditworthy farmer who has had credit withheld, I hope that they will let us know and we will deal with it.
The right hon. Gentleman made an intriguing proposal for interest-free loans. One difficulty is that such a scheme would undoubtedly cut across anything that has been done before. It would require legislation and it would be a breach of the principle that farmers must carry these risks themselves, save to the extent that they can be taken into account at the Price Review. The administrative arrangements might be more complicated than may appear at first sight, but we are willing to look at that suggestion.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: rose—

Mr. Mackie: I promised that I would sit down on time and I am already two minutes over my time. The hon. Gentleman knows how bad it is for hon. Mem-

bers to take more time than they have been allotted.
I conclude by pointing out that one of the difficulties is to assess exactly what the loss is. I said earlier that some of the crops are recovering. I was speaking to my manager in Lincolnshire at six o'clock to discover the effect of the week's good weather and last night's good rain. He said that the yellowness had gone from the barley, but that it did not look as though it had grown—he was not prepared to say whether it had improved The same is true of early potatoes.
I know that farmers would like to know whether any help is coming, but it would be a mistake to rush into something. We rushed into the £ for £ scheme, and ill-considered help may give more trouble than it is worth.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: I do not ask the Minister to rush into anything, but will he remember that it is vital that there should be a continued flow of capital and ploughing back of profits? Will he therefore between now and the next Price Review consider the trend of capital investment and whether the incentives to plough back, particularly the tax incentives, are strong enough?

Mr. Mackie: That is a general point, but we will look into that, as we shall look into all general points, before the next Price Review.
It has been difficult for me in the time available to reply in all the detail I could have wished, but I will make sure that hon. Members are kept informed.
I should like to point out that over the past few Reviews we have probably done more than ever before for agriculture.—[Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite may not like it, but it is only because they refuse to face these Things. Farmers today have more long-term guarantees, some to the end of 1971 and some to the end of 1972 or 1973, than they have ever had. The list covers two pages and I would annoy hon. Members opposite if I read it, for they hate hearing good news. But, in spite of the two shocking years, and I readily admit that they have been shocking, the farming community has considerable scope for the future under the present Government.

Mr. Ernest Armstrong: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

COASTAL POLLUTION

7.6 p.m.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: I beg to move,
That this House, noting the evidence given to the Select Committee on Science and Technology on Coastal Pollution by the Chief Scientific Adviser to the Government, in which he stated: 'I cannot at the moment name a single Minister who has the responsibility for putting all these recommendations into effect', regrets that Her Majesty's Government have refused to accept the unanimous recommendations of the Select Committee on Ministerial responsibility for preventing and dealing with further cases of coastal pollution.
Having been a member of the Select Committee on Science and Technology since it was first set up in 1967, I should much have preferred the debate to have been in Government time so that we could have avoided being as critical as we have been in this Motion.
I should like to make a few general observations about the Select Committee and, in particular, to pay a tribute to the clerk of the Sub-Committee of which I was Chairman and which dealt with coastal pollution. This clerk of the House gave very noble service. When he was clerk to our Sub-Committee he was also the clerk to the Agriculture Select Committee and to its Horticulture Sub-Committee and was having to attend to work for hon. Members at the Council of Europe and occasionally taking his turn at the Table of the House.
He was assisted half-time by one young lady who dealt with the typewriters in the office. The typewriter, a modern punch-tape machine, kept on breaking down, with the result that on one occasion the only way in which the work of the Sub-Committee could be furthered was by this young lady having to go to Buckingham Palace where the only available spare was in situ.
If the Government wish these Select Committees to do their work, they have to accept that now and again they must ensure that there is adequate staffing. I say that confirming our tribute to the clerk who served us.
I could also have wished that hon. Members opposite who were members of the Select Committee, particularly my Sub-Committee, did not have to be placed in some embarrassment tonight, as I am

sure they are, as a result of the Opposition having moved a critical Motion. My remarks will not in any way exacerbate any feelings of bitterness which they may have. Here I should like to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer). Since its initiation, under his chairmanship the Select Committee has been able to work very cordially, and I shall say nothing which will upset that cordiality.
I propose to divide my remarks into four main parts. I shall first make a general survey of the Report and of the White Paper, No. 3880, which contains the Government's views of our report. Secondly, I shall deal with the second main recommendation which concerns the desginating of a Minister to co-ordinate research in this respect.
Thirdly, I will deal with the first main recommendation, which was the appointment of a Minister to be briefed in advance to take charge of major emergencies of a national kind.
Fourthly, I will say a few words about the future and what has happened since the "Torrey Canyon" disaster. I should like to emphasise that in this debate the Opposition do not intend to pursue the "Torrey Canyon" issue. We are looking to the future, because our report was directed to the future. Although we had to try to draw some lessons from what happened to the "Torrey Canyon", we are concerned with how to deal with present anxieties and future needs.
Before embarking on the first part of my remarks, I should like to clear up one misunderstanding which has arisen. It concerns what we say in paragraph 59 of our report dealing with an oil spillage in the Thames off Barking. The Committee went down to have a look at it. In making these arrangements, due to a purely inadvertent mistake over the telephone, it was assumed that the Ministry of Technology's chief officer in this sphere, Mr. Wardley Smith of the Warren Spring Laboratory, had not been informed of this spillage.
I should like to correct this misunderstanding, because it led to a great deal of concern and anxiety on the part of Mr. Townsend, the River Conservator and Principal Pollution Control Officer, of the Port of London Authority. We have heard from him, since the report was


issued, that Mr. Wardley Smith had been informed. The mistake came about because the Ministry of Housing and Local Government had not been informed that he had been informed and our clerk got in touch with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. I should like to clear that up to ensure there is no breakdown in the happy relationships which have existed between the Port of London Authority and the Warren Spring Laboratory.
I should also like to pick up one other point that arises on Appendix 33 of our report which contains two statements, one from the Ministry of Technology, the other from the Ministry of Agriculture.
Concerning the Ministry of Agriculture, hon. Members will see at the end of Appendix 33 the date, 24th May, 1968. They might think that that date should also be attached to the report from the Ministry of Technology which precedes it. However, that report from the Ministry of Technology did not come in until 8th August, 1968, which was after our report had gone to the printers. I take full responsibility for having allowed this Appendix to appear at all. But, as the Sub-Committee had requested the answers to the questions which the Ministry answer in the Appendix, I felt it only right that the Appendix should be included in the Report.
I turn now to the first major part of my remarks. I have already emphasised that we are not dealing with the "Torrey Canyon". The report was never intended to be an inquest on the "Torrey Canyon". Indeed we were instructed by the House not to make it one. In the debate which took place in April, 1967, I think that was made very clear.
We have tried to assess future risks. Since our report I have had a very important letter from Mr. Kirby, the principal officer of the Shell Company responsible for introducing what is now known as the "load on top" system to ensure that oil is not discharged into the sea, save in minimal quantities, when tankers are having their tanks cleaned out on their way back to the source of the oil.
In paragraph 10 of our report we mention that although we see that logically it can be argued that the bigger the

tanker the fewer there need be, nevertheless, it has been the case up to now that the number of tankers is still increasing every year and, therefore, the risk of collision must be increasing, too. But Mr. Kirby sent me a letter on 5th September last year, just after our report came out, in which he has given some important figures which I think the House might like to have. He shows that whilst in 1965 there were 72 million tons deadweight with 2,400 units—this is excluding ships up to roughly 2,000 tons—by 1975 it is estimated that there will be only 1,900 units; in other words, a reduction from 2,400 down to 1,900.
He then goes on to say, which I think is very important, that the improvement in the training of Masters and crew in ensuring that pollution is not caused on the sea is going to be very considerable. As a result, he says that perhaps the fears which we express in paragraph 10 of our report will not prove to be well founded by events. Let us hope that this is so. But we must take into account—I shall come back to this in the final part of my speech—that at present there is still plenty of cause for anxiety.
Having dealt with the risks—and I think that we must still recognise that there are roughly 2 tanker accidents of some kind every week of the year somewhere in the world—we moved on to talk about ways and means of reducing the risks, the immediate action which should be taken before help can be made available to a tanker in distress, the various forms of aid for tankers in distress, the organisation and treatment necessary in the event of coastal pollution actually occurring or becoming imminent, research projects and international co-operation, and the possibility of collision not only with oil drilling rigs but other hazardous cargoes, and sewage and industrial effluents. We received evidence from the Minister of Housing and Local Government, who I was glad to hear say that he still regards this as one of the most serious forms of pollution. I hope that there will be a very stringent tightening up of the measures designed to overcome this problem. It is a public disgrace that these effluents are being discharged into our rivers. They destroy the beauty of many of our rivers. The sewage, which still pours into our rivers and into the sea, is still far too high—high in more senses than one.
We then dealt with marine biology and the effects upon fauna and flora.
In particular, we finished up by talking about the "load-on-top" principle. Briefly, this ingenious system was introduced largely due to the initiative of Mr. Kirby of Shell. It simply means that when tanks are being cleaned of the sludge which clings to them after oil has been discharged at the receiving port this end, instead of that sludge being discharged into the open sea, it is collected in one stern tank of the big tankers and the next load collected from the oil sources comes in on top of that. This has saved over 1 million tons of oil being discharged into the sea every year. I very much hope that this process will go on until eventually we have 100 per cent. perfection. At the moment I think we are somewhere near 90 per cent. It is only the smaller operators—particularly the Italians—who are mainly responsible for what is still going on.
We made 21 recommendations in our report. Since its issue, the Government have published a White Paper, Command No. 3880, in which they have, to all intents and purposes, virtually accepted sixteen of those recommendations. They have made certain qualifications to them. However, I should like to thank the Government for at least having accepted sixteen of our recommendations in principle.
Their main disagreement arose over the first two recommendations, which dealt with the appointment of a Minister, and our suggestion about rechartering some of the major hazards in shipping, particularly those concerned with carrying oil. I accept that the chief hydrologist of the Royal Navy is an expert whom one would be unwise to challenge unless one were sure of one's facts, but I hope that the House will listen carefully to what my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price), who will wind up for the Opposition, has to say on this matter, because I think that there are some very important new processes available now, perhaps enabling chartering to be speeded up.
The Government also criticised to some degree our observations about Her Majesty's coastguards keeping constant watch. I appreciate that every coastal protection authority has paid tribute to Her Majesty's coastguards for the work they have done—and I am certain that

no one on the Committee wished in any way to be derogatory of their work—but the fact remains that we have had a frightening incidence of coastal pollution around our shores since the "Torrey Canyon" disaster, and I still believe that we were right to ask in our report that further consideration should be given to the number of coastguard stations which should be kept on constant watch.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman says that the Government have accepted 16 out of 21 recommendations. Where in all this does the Motion of censure lie? I do not see where the element of censure comes in.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I have not a little respect for the hon. Gentleman. I hope that he will at least allow me to make my speech, because if he gives me a moment or two he will see why we have put this Motion on the Order Paper.
The other point which the Government particularly questioned was whether the Ministry of Transport was being complacent in its attitude to risks involved in drilling in the North Sea. When we see what has happened off Santa Barbara in California, where 20,000 tons a day of oil were discharged as a result of drilling, we have to recognise that that is a considerably larger quantity of oil than ever lit on the Cornish coast from the "Torrey Canyon". I find the evidence from the Ministry of Transport somewhat complacent, and I do not regret having said what we did about that.
There was one other matter which arose over Recommendation 11, and here again I have to refer to Mr. Kirby's letter to me of 5th September. We expressed some anxiety about this new process of transferring oil from large tankers to slightly smaller ones where the oil has to be brought into ports, where the draught of the ships which bring it from the source of the oil may be too great to enable them to get into the harbours. In this case Mr. Kirby has reassured me that an enormous amount of trouble has been taken to ensure that there will not be any spillage, and he goes on to say that one of the recommendations which we made, namely, that the receiving tanker should carry adequate stocks


of detergents, is now in force. Whether we thought of it, or they did, I do not think matters very much. The important thing is that it is being done.
It is a very wise measure, and I recognise that both the Board of Trade and the companies concerned—I think it is mainly Shell that is involved—have taken a great deal of trouble to see that there will not be a spillage, but we have to recognise that when the "General Colocotronis" went aground a year after the "Torrey Canyon" there was a severance of a pipe transferring oil from one ship to another, and it always could happen. After all, squalls suddenly come up, and although the transfer process may not take place unless the weather is calm enough, one never knows what is going to happen, even in the English Channel.
The other matter on which there was some reservation was our recommendation that one of the four pieces of equipment with which every tanker should be equipped was v.h.f. The person who recommended that to us was Lord Geddes, and I hope that what the Government say about this in their White Paper, namely, the possibility of legislation, will be speeded up, because this is of considerable importance.
I turn, now, to the second part of my remarks; to deal with the recommendations in paragraphs 46 and 47. Paragraph 40 of Cmnd. 3880 says:
The Select Committee did not have before them any memorandum on machinery of government, nor did they seek evidence from those directly concerned with the general arrangements for emergencies.
I must ask whether whoever drew up that White Paper read the evidence, because if he had read it he would have found that the Ministerial Emergencies Committee was referred to by Mr. Broughton of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, by the then Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy, now the Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign Office, at Question 410 on page 186 on 2nd April, 1968, and by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Housing and Local Government at Question 691 on page 227. And if hon. Members look at Question 255 on this matter—I know it is confusing for hon. Members to follow this Report be-

cause they will find double numbering most of the way through—they will see that I, too, was not entirely unaware of the existence of this Committee.
May I here say, I am sure on behalf of members of the Select Committee, that I have a great deal of admiration for the work which the present Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs did at that time. His was not an easy job, and I think that even he would recognise that it might have been advantageous to himself to have had a little more of the background and been more conversant with the vernacular in which one has to think and speak in these things before he had to take on this onerous task.
The hon. Gentleman said in answer to Question 464:
I think I was involved because it was a disaster at sea; that is why the Navy Minister came in … I am not sure if it was a precedent
The hon. Gentleman was very loyal to the Government about this. He saw no need to alter the present procedure of the Government's Ministerial Emergencies Committee, but if I had his job I know that I should have liked to have been told some months before that if ever one of these disasters occurred it would fall to me to take charge; and all we are asking in our report is that he should be given that opportunity, whoever it be. All these oil spillages will eventually, if not initially, involve the Royal Navy, and possibly the Royal Air Force, and it seems to me that there is a case for saying that that job should normally be handled by somebody from the Ministry of Defence.
I turn, now, to the major part of my speech, and perhaps this will satisfy the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). Paragraph 45 of our Report refers to the co-ordination of research. In the report of his own Committee, Sir Solly Zuckerman listed at page viii the nine projects which he thought should be researched as the result of his inquiry into the "Torrey Canyon". These covered the speedier transferring of oil, methods of firing oil in stranded tankers and on the sea, movement and natural degradation and destruction of oil on the sea, sinking, scavenging and gelling agents, detergent toxicity and effectiveness, spraying and cleansing equipment, mechanical aids at sea and on the


beaches, booms, and damage to marine life, sea birds and coastal vegetation.
Before Sir Solly appeared before us, we had asked some written questions. In particular, on page 141 on 27th February, 1968, we asked him what part he thought should be played by the Government, including Service and Civil Departments, in the research which he listed in his Report. He replied that the list had been
… considered in the normal interdepartmental way, and discussion, about which departments should carry out the research, is still going on.
This was over three months after the Report and 11 months after the "Torrey Canyon" disaster. I think that the Sub-Committee was greatly concerned at the somewhat leisurely tempo of this reply.
I now give some of Sir Solly's answers to some of our questions when he appeared in person:
As to whether sufficient heat is being put on … it is a fact that the heat has been taken out of this matter.
There comes a time when the state of national emergency disappears and when that kind of licence presumably has to be withdrawn even from Ministers. I certainly do not possess that authority now. Had I, for example, known that once the Torrey Canyon disaster was regarded as having diminished I still had responsibility for carrying through all the continuing work to avert some of the consequences of potential further disasters, I would have carried on, but I have not got that power.
When a member of the Committee then asked him:
Surely with direct access to the Prime Minister … you could suggest action which would result in a minute going round to various departments telling them to take the matter more seriously. I find it deeply disquieting that nearly a year after the disaster we do not know which Government departments are going to research into what.
Sir Solly replied:
I take the point and I shall inform myself …
This led to our receiving Appendix 15, in paragraph 3 of which, on page 298, we got some interim answers a year after the "Torrey Canyon" disaster. Sir Solly's comments speak for themselves in answer to Question 250:
… here are recommendations for further action on research. The easiest way to see this implemented would be to charge someone with the responsibility and with so much money, having made a preliminary review of the situation, to see that the work was par-

celled out and carried out. Now, I am disclosing no secrets when I say that this is not the way we do things.
He is telling us:
Different departments with their responsibilities will undertake to do what they feel is appropriate to them.
I ask the House to note the next words:
Sometimes they might even try to push off jobs which are appropriate to them on to other departments. These things are always possible. I would agree that I, at this moment … do not know, I am not informed—there is no machinery to keep me informed at the present moment—about the process of negotiation between departments on matters of this kind.
And this was said by the Government's Chief Scientific Adviser. That is white-hot technical revolution at its most purposeful and meaningful.
On this almost incredible reply, Sir Solly was then asked:
Do you then feel there is a need for clarification of Ministerial responsibilites over the research which you recommend and list … in your Report?
Yes",
said Sir Solly, and so does the Committee.
If one Minister were responsible then I would not have had to answer the Sub-Committee's question in the way I did, that discussions were proceeding in the normal inter-Departmental way.
He went on to say that he had no right to take charge of the general provision of research which he had recommended himself; and later said:
I cannot at this moment name a single Minister who has the resopnsibility for putting all these recommendations into effect or for arguing why they should not be accepted, but there is Ministerial responsibility in the field of hazards.
It is this answer which we quote in our Motion. I have never assumed, as some newspapers apparently have, that Sir Solly meant that he did not know the name of a single departmental Minister. I think that he meant that he did not know one Minister responsible for overseeing all Departments.
Sir Solly was then asked whether he agreed or disagreed that there was a need
for someone to be in a position to put down the accelerator, to find out what is going on and to report to the most appropriate Minister in the Cabinet or elsewhere?
His reply was categorical:
I would agree with that.


Again—to refute any suggestion that we were not aware of the Ministerial Emergencies Committee—Sir Solly had been asked whether his list of researches went outside the responsibility of the Committee. He replied:
These issues would go outside.
He said this 10 months after the Ministerial Sub-Committee on Hazardous Cargoes had been set up, which is referred to in paragraph 21 of the White Paper.
Sir Solly exposed the real heart of the matter in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby), who asked, in Question 261:
Would … it … accelerate things if one departmental Minister were put in charge of this, or … a Cabinet Committee … though that might be a little cumbrous?
He replied:
It is a matter for the machinery of government and in the end a matter for the Prime Minister himself to decide.
Here is the nub of the matter, and it is upon the Prime Minister, particularly, I am afraid, that our main criticism must fall. It is he who is really responsible for the Government's failure to show that all the reassurances given by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, when Home Secretary, during the debate on 10th April, 1967, which led to the House referring coastal pollution to the Select Committee, would be fulfilled.
I do not want to quote all that he said, but he particularly stressed the urgency of this research, which was becoming more apparent every week. He pointed out that various spillages were going on even then. At present, there is another spillage off Southend. Last night, there was nearly a catastrophe to the latest and one of the largest new tankers, the "Esso Scotia" in Bremen, 228,000 tons. Mercifully, she had no oil aboard, but she was blown adrift from her moorings; what would have happened if she had been carrying oil and something had gone wrong with her recovery, I do not know.
However, this year, up to 27th May, there were oil spillages off the coasts of Suffolk, Essex and Hampshire in January, South Wales, Devon and Lincolnshire in February, Aberdeenshire, Durham, Yorkshire, Essex, Kent and South Wales in March, the Mersey estuary, North Wales

and Lancashire in April, Humberside, Kent and Cumberland in May. In the present month, there have been at least two off Southend and in the Channel. Most of these, fortunately, have been but fractional when compared with the "Torrey Canyon" disaster, but elsewhere in the world there have been several severe tanker spillages and accidents, notably that off Santa Barbara.
I have recently seen a report of the Lancashire and Western Sea Fisheries' Joint Committee on the sequel to the collision between the German coaster "Hannes Knuppel", of 490 tons, with the 12,718-ton British tanker "Hamilton Trader". Having read this report, I hope that the Government will take it seriously, because this is the first major accident on the North-West coast since the new instructions went out from the Ministry of Housing, and they seem to be creaking a little.
I understand that the Ministry of Technology is arranging for various demonstrations to be given around the country. One is due to take place at Eastbourne on Wednesday to display various modern methods of handling pollution. I have been informed only this morning that one of the pieces of equipment which is being exhibited has been out of production and obsolete for three years and, what is more, that commercial firms have been deliberately told that they cannot attend because this is not a commercial exercise.
I beg the Under-Secretary to make it clear whether the Government want the co-operation of industry or not. My own belief is that they cannot do without it, that they should do everything they can to enable industry to co-operate in every way and that, when industry wants to attend a demonstration laid on through Warren Spring Laboratory or anywhere else under Government auspices, the Government should do everything they can to welcome the interest shown by industry.
Since the debate in April, 1967 we have had a new Home Secretary, a man with a fine record for taking an interest in preventing oil pollution. However, we are still saddled with a Prime Minister who has not even taken the trouble to give his chief scientific officer the right, let alone the power, to ensure the co-ordination of the very research which he was instructed to recommend. This


is not government but pollution of a very crude kind in the corridors of power. The biggest load on top in Whitehall is not hydrocarbon but humbug. I remind hon. Members of this comment made by a former Minister of Education:
'Expert' would be better to be defined as 'x-spurt', where 'x' is the unknown quantity and 'spurt'—as everyone will know—is a drip under pressure".
That reference is a particularly good one today.

7.41 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Elystan Morgan): It may be helpful to the House if I try, first, to set in perspective the circumstances in which coastal pollution occurs in this country, and then describe the arrangements which are made, locally and nationally, to deal with it.
Disasters, when they occur, attract a great deal of publicity and each is the focus of much attention while it lasts. However, it will be agreed that it is our good fortune that large-scale physical disasters, which are beyond the capacity of local resources, are very infrequent in the United Kingdom. We do not have volcanoes, avalanches, earthquakes or forest fires, and even our worst floods are not comparable to those experienced in other countries.
In the years since the war, disasters calling for the employment of resources on a national scale can perhaps be numbered on the fingers of one hand; the East Coast floods in 1953, the dreadful tragedy at Aberfan, in 1966, the "Torrey Canyon" and the foot-and-mouth epidemic in 1967 and last year's floods. Certainly the use of ever-larger forms of transport by land, sea or air, the development of new forms of power and the movement of dangerous substances inevitably bring new hazards. But we should not base our plans on the premise that major disasters, natural or man-made, are frequent.
Another preliminary comment I wish to make is that if the possibility of a threat can be foreseen, the best course is to take steps to prevent it materialising. It is better to spend more on preventive than remedial measures, and there are already international agreements dealing with the pollution of the sea by oil.
The discharge of oil from ships at sea is controlled internationally by the International Convention on the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil, 1954, as amended in 1962. The Convention was drawn up by an international conference convened on the initiative of Her Majesty's Government in 1953 and has been accepted by 39 countries. It is administered by the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organisation, I.M.C.O.
The Convention prohibits the discharge from ships of persistent oil into "prohibited zones" of the sea, extending generally for 50 or 100 miles from land. The whole of the North Sea and English Channel and a large part of the Atlantic Ocean are also a prohibited zone. Such discharges from new ships—that is, ships contracted for since 1967—exceeding 20,000 tons are prohibited anywhere at sea.
The Convention exempts from these prohibitions discharges for the purpose of saving a ship or saving life and discharges arising from casualties to ships or unavoidable leakage. It also contains provisions dealing with enforcement, the provision of reception facilities at ports for ships' oily residues and the recording of shipboard operations involving oil.

Mr. H. P. G. Channon: What are the penalties in the countries concerned for offences of this kind?

Mr. Morgan: I cannot answer that without notice. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that eventually an agreement of this kind must be translated into the legislation of each and every one of the 39 countries which have accepted it.

Mr. John Nott: What are the penalties under the Oil in Navigable Waters Acts when there is pollution within Britain's territorial waters and when it is not a matter coming within an international agreement?

Mr. Morgan: I do not have copies of the 1955 and 1963 Acts with me, but I am prepared to correspond with the hon. Gentleman on the subject or, if necessary, obtain the information he requires during the debate.
I was about to point out that the provisions of the Convention have been applied to British ships by the Oil in Navigable Waters Acts, 1955 and 1963,


which also make it an offence for ships of any nationality to discharge oil of any type and in any quantity into our territorial waters.
As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs told my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) in a Written Answer this afternoon, only last week an Agreement for regional co-operation between States bordering the North Sea and the English Channel, which was foreshadowed in paragraph 26 of the Government's White Paper on Coastal Pollution, was signed on 9th June by Her Majesty's Government. The other signatories are the Federal Republic of Germany, France, Belgium, Norway, Sweden and Denmark. We hope that the Netherlands will become a party to it in due course.
The Agreement requires contracting States to request shipping and aircraft to report major oil slicks. States will also be under an obligation to circulate to other contracting parties reports of the presence, extent and movement of slicks. If one State whose coasts are threatened requests assistance in disposing of the oil, the others must use their best endeavours to help.
Contracting States are also required to exchange information on new methods of dealing with oil slicks. In the North Sea, zones of responsibility for each contracting State have been established under Article 9 of the Agreement for this purpose. South of the Thames Estuary and in the English Channel there will be two zones of joint responsibility which will serve the same purpose. The Agreement should help Britain and the other signatories to obtain information about oil slicks which might endanger their coasts. It will also provide means of obtaining assistance, where possible, in the event of a major spillage for which individual national resources turn out to be inadequate.
As a result of other studies undertaken under the aegis of the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organisation, understanding has been reached on a number of measures designed to reduce the possibility of accidental or deliberate pollution by oil. These cover, in particular, the adoption of traffic separation

schemes, the carriage by ships of specific navigational aids, procedures designed to facilitate the detection and punishment of offenders and regional co-operation in the North Sea area. Work continues on questions affecting the design and construction of tankers carrying oil and other hazardous cargoes in bulk, on research into methods of dealing with oil pollution on the problems of pollution by other substances, and also on legal questions. On the last of these problems, a diplomatic conference is to be held in Brussels in November this year to consider draft conventions about the rights of a coastal State to take action to forestall pollution in the event of a casualty and on liability for damage arising from oil pollution. The Government are continuing to play a major part in the work of the organisation.
Now I turn directly to what I think is the essence of the problem we are debating this evening: where does responsibility properly lie in these matters? Most emergencies, of all sorts, lie fully within the capacity of local and other authorities, using their own services and resources, and calling as necessary on the services of neighbouring authorities and on the Armed Forces and the police. I am thinking of collapsed buildings and bridges, fires, local floods, accidents of all sorts, polluted beaches and so on.

Mr. Anthony Buck: Before passing from the reference to the Armed Forces, it is true that the Army must co-operate on all occasions, but is the hon. Gentleman aware that it also demands a complete indemnity against loss of equipment and so forth which occur? Will he deal with that point because it deters some local authorities calling the Army in to assist?

Mr. Morgan: That is an interesting tangent of this debate, but it is not really central to the main issue. I think the procedures whereunder a Government Department or a local authority can call in the Armed Services are well known.

Sir Charles Taylor: rose—

Mr. Morgan: I would prefer to proceed with my speech. I prefer not to give way at this stage. Local authorities have the experience, expertise and resources to adapt themselves rapidly to


deal with these troubles, and very competently they deal with them—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] I appreciate that this is a three-hour debate and one has to be fair to other speakers. More often than not local authorities need no help from Government Departments, but if they do, this can be provided by the Department primarily concerned. For example, in the foot-and-mouth epidemic in 1967, assistance was given by the Ministry of Agriculture, and in the floods of last year assistance was given by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government.

Sir C. Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman now allow me to ask a question? In my area of Eastbourne the local authorities do everything they can, but there is always the question of who pays. Some local authorities may hold back because they do not know whether the ratepayers or the local authority will be indemnified

Mr. Morgan: I shall be mentioning in a moment a circular issued by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and the Welsh Office which deals adequately and fully with the question of payment.
If there is a need for co-ordination over a wide field, the Government have well-established arrangements to come into operation. Responsibility lies with the Home Secretary for co-ordinating action to deal with major civil emergencies which cannot readily be dealt with by one Department. As has been pointed out by the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke), he is Chairman of the Ministerial Committee on Emergencies, which is responsible for dealing with civil emergencies that are of such magnitude that they affect supplies and services essential to the life of the community. The terms of reference of the Ministerial Committee on Emergencies specifically enables the Committee to undertake responsibility for the co-ordination of action in respect of any emergency of national importance which calls for such co-ordination.
It is essential, however, to emphasise that these arrangements do not alter the ordinary functions and duties of Ministers who are responsible for preparing plans for, and dealing with, all matters which fall within their respective spheres of responsibility. Delay and loss of efficiency would be the only result of

appointing a Minister to take over the responsibilities of other Ministers whenever a particular emergency arose. Where in a particular emergency such as a flood or serious epidemic of foot-and-mouth disease responsibility for giving help to local authorities or other bodies of one or perhaps two Departments can be efficiently provided, there is no point whatever in introducing co-ordination by a separate Minister and staff. Any such appointment would not be an end in itself; it would be chosen only as a means of getting things done more efficiently and quickly.
It is this approach which the Government have followed in the case of coastal pollution. Most contamination from oil on our coastline is sporadic minor pollution which coastal authorities deal with. As indicated in the White Paper, Command No. 3880, each coastal authority has been developing its local organisation in the light of experience gained in recent years and submitting schemes to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, the Scottish Development Department or the Welsh Office.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I am glad to hear that, but is the hon. Gentleman aware that whenever there is a spillage, as for example on the Mersey, there is panic telephoning and rush ordering of equipment but people are not there to answer?

Mr. Morgan: I am not willing to accept that that is the general pattern. The hon. Member must accept that there are many thousands of these occurrences when the Ministry is not called in at all. What we are discussing is the totality of all these occasions.
The aim is to ensure that there is a nation-wide plan for dealing with oil pollution whenever it may occur, and wherever they happen. The schemes will deal specifically with the allocation of executive responsibility for action between county and district councils, river authorities, dock and labour authorities and other bodies. Most of the schemes have now come in and are being examined and discussed by the Ministry with the local authorities concerned.
As regards the responsibilities of Ministers, the Minister of Housing and Local Government has the main task of building up the capacity of local authorities


to discharge their responsibility for dealing with oil pollution of their beaches. This has included, as I have explained, negotiations with local authorities on the submission of schemes of organisation.
Supplies of detergent have been made available to coastal authorities and further stocks are being obtained, and every local authority on the coast has been provided with maps showing areas where the use of detergent might be harmful to fisheries or nature interests. Schemes of organisation include provision for consultation with the local District Inspectors of Fisheries and Regional Officers of the Nature Conservancy. Service commanders have been given a discretion to undertake, at the request of local authorities, reconnaissance of reported oil slicks at sea or action to deal with them up to a limit of £2,000 on each count for any one incident. Officers of the Ministry have been available seven days a week since "Torrey Canyon" to give such help as local authorities may ask for in the event of their beaches being threatened with or polluted by oil. Requests for help are rare, even when it is specifically offered. As for legislation the Government accepted the recommendation of the Select Committee that this should not be introduced until local authorities have put forward their schemes. However, the Ministry of Housing and Local Government is drafting instructions for a Bill to clarify the powers of local authorities where necessary and to authorise grant which is now given extra statutorily. Consultation with interested organisations will follow.
So much for Ministerial responsibility for oil pollution on our coasts. As regards oil slicks at sea, under the Agreement that was signed in Bonn on 9th June, the United Kingdom, as I have already indicated, will be responsible for collecting reports upon any oil slicks within certain areas of the sea bordering our coasts, for keeping a watch on their movements and for passing information about them to other signatories who are likely to be affected. These responsibilities under the Agreement will be undertaken by the Board of Trade.
The Board of Trade will, therefore, extend the existing arrangements for getting reports of oil slicks at sea by seeking the co-operation of masters of

ships and captains of aircraft in sending in immediate reports of any incident likely to cause oil pollution and of any oil slicks seen floating on the sea. This should enable the Coastguard more often to give advance warning to local authorities of any pollution threatening their beaches. In addition, arrangements are being made for the reports to be received and assessed centrally and, where necessary, the Board of Trade will arrange for an oil slick to be kept under surveillance, relying mainly on Service aircraft and ships.
These arrangements will be sufficient to enable us to fulfil our obligations under the international agreement. Reporting and surveillance will not be confined to the sea areas specified in the Agreement, however, but will be extended to all the areas bordering our coasts. Moreover, when it is clear that an oil slick threatens our coasts and that it would be advantageous to disperse it while it is still at sea, taking into account the effect on fisheries and other interests, the Board of Trade in future will be prepared in appropriate cases to arrange and pay for clearance action, whether by the use of Service vessels or aircraft, when available, or by any other means that appear in the circumstances to be suitable. The Board of Trade is working out procedures for initiating and organising such action, and for getting the necessary technical and scientific advice, in conjunction with other Departments and interests concerned, including local authorities.
Although the Government are thus prepared to meet the cost of quick action to deal with oil slicks at sea, this does not remove any liability incurred by the vessels which cause pollution. The Board of Trade is already responsible for taking enforcement action under the Oil in Navigable Waters Acts, and in the course of such action it will seek reimbursement of the costs incurred in dealing with an oil slick wherever the offending vessel can be identified.
These new arrangements do not change the responsibilities of local authorities. They will remain responsible, with grant assistance from my right hon. Friends the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales, for dealing with oil pollution on their


beaches and with any oil on the sea which immediately threatens their beaches up to about one mile from the shore.
If the work of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and the Board of Trade requires to be co-ordinated with that of other departments and bodies, this can be done under normal arrangements or, as I have explained, by the Home Secretary and the Ministerial Committee on Emergencies if a particular emergency should reach national proportions as occurred with the wreck of the "Torrey Canyon".
In the field of research, a Committee under the chairmanship of the Chief Scientific Adviser co-ordinates and reviews the whole field of the Government's scientific and technological policy, including progress on the research projects relating to oil pollution.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Since when?

Mr. Morgan: The hon. Gentleman will have seen the detailed statement in paragraph 47 of Cmnd. 3880.
The Chairman reports on this particular aspect of the Committee's work to the Ministerial Sub-Committee on Hazardous Cargoes, a key part of the machinery to ensure that Departments work in close collaboration and that the various spheres of activity are properly related. This Sub-Committee has invited the Chief Scientific Adviser to keep in touch with the progress of research, to co-ordinate the research work of individual Departments as required and to report to the Ministerial Sub-Committee what is needed in the light of research both here and abroad. The Sub-Committee will ensure that the knowledge so acquired is translated into appropriate measures, and the Home Secretary, as Chairman of this Sub-Committee, bears the general responsibility for co-ordination of these measures. As Chairman also of the Ministerial Committee on Emergencies, which is responsible both for preparing plans for major civil emergencies and for co-ordinating action when such an emergency arises, he is in a position to ensure that the Sub-Committee on Hazardous Cargoes receives all necessary support in its task.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Then how did it come about that when Sir Solly Zuckerman appeared before our Select

Committee, after that official Committee had been set up, he told us that he had not got the powers the hon. Gentleman is now describing?

Mr. Morgan: In a moment I shall deal with the comments of the Chief Scientific Adviser.
We therefore come to the question—what is the criticism? In the executive field the suggestion made by the Select Committee was that a single Minister should be designated to take immediate charge of any major oil tanker disaster requiring emergency action by the Government.
I think I can fairly make the point at the outset—I am sure the hon. Gentleman will not object to this—that the Committee did not have before it evidence on questions of machinery of government or on the administrative arrangements for dealing with emergencies. It did not seek evidence from those concerned with these responsibilities, and it made its recommendation about Ministerial responsibility without obtaining such evidence.

Mr. David Price: Nonsense.

Mr. Morgan: Not at all. I invite the hon. Gentleman to name any witnesses who were in a position to give this authoritative evidence.

Mr. Price: As the Under-Secretary has challenged me, my reply is that the Minister of Housing and Local Government played a very large part in the arrangements for dealing with the wreck of the "Torrey Canyon".

Mr. Morgan: I am not aware that my right hon. Friend specifically gave any evidence whatsoever on the question of the machinery of Government, and that is what we are talking about at this stage.
The White Paper properly described much of the criticism made by the Select Committee as "ill-founded" and in no respect is it more ill-founded than with regard to this particular recommendation. The reasons why are given in paragraphs 40 onwards of the White Paper and I have given further explanation in supplementation tonight.
It has been said by the hon. Member for Isle of Ely that 21 recommendations were made by his Sub-Committee of which 16 had been accepted by the Government. That is not quite an accurate


way of putting it, because what is set out in the second Government White Paper is a record in most cases of work that was already going on. It is not as if the Government had looked at these recommendations and said, "We will accept a, c, d and g". It is a statement of what was already in existence in most cases before the Sub-Committee commented upon these matters.
In the research field the criticism is that one senior Minister should be given responsibility for the general supervision and co-ordination of the work in the field of research.
In voicing this criticism, use is made of evidence attributed to the Chief Scientific Adviser in discu+ssion with the Select Committee. It is generally wise to look a little more closely at the context from which quotations are taken, and the reference to the Chief Scientific Adviser's evidence to the Select Committee is no exception. Members of the Select Committee put a series of questions to him about the machinery by which the recommenadtions of his scientific committee could be considered and put into effect. The Select Committee wished to examine whether it was desirable to make one Minister responsible for the co-ordination of all research effort on this subject, and it was put to the Chief Scientific Adviser—Question 254 on page 150 of the Minutes of Evidence—that there was no overall central direction which could require that his committee's recommendations could even be considered, let alone be put into effect. Sir Solly denied this, saying that the responsibility rested with a Ministerial Committee as a corporate body and not with a single Minister.
A member of the Select Committee, however, returned to the point—this is Question No. 256—saying that there seemed to be no means whereby someone or some body could see that the work was carried through. I shall read the Chief Scientific Adviser's reply:
I do not think it is as black and white as that. I cannot at this moment name a single Minister who has the responsibility for putting all these recommendations into effect, or for arguing why they should not be accepted, but there is Ministerial responsibility in the field of hazards. I imagine that were the case put firmly to them, that they were not a body concerned to decide whether these recommendations are accepted, they would cor-

rectly say that this is not so and that there is a responsibility.
The Government set out the position fully in paragraph 46 of the White Paper, Coastal Pollution, and in paragraph 47 they set out the arguments against making a single Minister responsible. The White Paper drew attention to the rôle of the Chief Scientific Adviser himself in the review and co-ordination of scientific and technological policy, and to the co-ordinating functions of the Ministerial Sub-Committee on Hazardous Cargoes. I have given further information tonight on how this machinery is operating.
The allocation of responsibilities throughout this field is clear-cut and can be summarised succinctly. Most coastal pollution is dealt with quickly and efficiently by local authorities without the need for Governmental help. This is illustrated by the most recent case of beach pollution at Southend on 25th May; the local authorities dealt with the pollution without requiring assistance from the Government. Behind these authorities stand the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and the Board of Trade. If we ever again need to deal with pollution on the scale threatened by the wreck of the "Torrey Canyon", the Ministerial Committee on Emergencies is ready to co-ordinate. I have dealt with the arrangements in respect of research.
Those are the arrangements for planning and action at the local and central level. I put it to the House that they are sensible and straightforward. They were carefully reviewed after the wreck of the "Torrey Canyon", and they have been kept under review during the last two years.
The issues which we are discussing tonight are not party matters, and I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members opposite are not so low in political ammunition as to put them to that use. I hope that what I have said shows that they seek to put a gloss upon Sir Solly Zuckerman's words which those words will not carry, and that their criticism of the Government's action is based upon a fundamental misconception.

8.13 p.m.

Sir Stephen McAdden: If my right hon. and hon. Friends had not put this Motion down, we should


have been deprived of the opportunity to listen to the speech of the Under-Secretary of State, which seemed to be a complete justification of the Motion. The complacent attitude which the hon. Gentleman adopted towards the criticism which is made seemed quite indefensible. If I understood him aright, he said that, so long as there was a major civil emergency, we had one Minister who was responsible and who could do all the necessary co-ordination. A major civil emergency very rarely arises, but, if it does, the Home Secretary will be the man to handle all these things. That is how I understood it.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: The Home Secretary, through the Ministerial Committee for Emergencies. It is a corporate responsibility.

Sir S. McAdden: Yes, but the Home Secretary would be the chap in charge in a major civil emergency.
The hon. Gentleman seemed to pooh-pooh the problem of what is happening around our coasts today as a result of oil pollution, saying that the local authorities are dealing with it easily. He paid tribute, I am glad to say, to the efficiency of the Southend Council and the way in which that authority promptly and capably dealt with the pollution of its beach. That is true, but, although it may seem a small incident to the Government, it is a very big incident for the people of Southend, and all the more so when it is repeated again today.
People will not be satisfied if the Government just sit back and say that we can leave it to the local authorities to deal with the problem, especially when in one important aspect, namely, the detection and punishment of offenders, nothing is done. I am surprised that not a word was said from the Dispatch Box tonight about new and vigorous steps being taken to detect and punish those who are responsible.
I expected something to be said, and hope that whoever is to wind up for the Government will say something about it. This is the point which worries local authorities. We have had a long list of agreements and arrangements made with other countries, but agreements are not much good if they are not enforced. These repeated breaches of the law are being committed without any evidence

available to the public so far that anything lively is being done to detect and punish offenders.
After the recent occurrence at Southend over Whitsun, we were regaled with stories in the Press that scientific detection methods had advanced so far that investigators would be able to analyse the oil, find out from which oilfield in the world it had come, and be able to pick out the actual ship which had been responsible for discharging oil into the Thames Estuary. But the last reply I had from the Minister of Housing and Local Government was that he could hold out no hope whatever of finding the culprit.
When my right hon. and hon Friends put the Motion down, they were, I am sure, anxious to draw attention, among other things, to the fact that the Select Committee's Report, which was produced some time ago, had not been debated in the House. We were told that time was not available. The Government have had no difficulty in making Government time available for all sorts of queer things—if that is not the wrong word to use—certainly, they have found it possible to make Government time available. Yet this matter, which is of importance to all those of us in coastal areas, has been brushed aside, and when it comes to be debated it is dealt with, if I may say so, in a manner which seems to indicate that it is not being taken very seriously.
When these events occur at coastal resorts, they present a serious problem. One does not know who to get in touch with. To have a question satisfactorily answered, one has to put Questions down not to one Minister, but to several—to the Minister of Transport, the President of the Board of Trade, the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the Minister of Technology, for a start. If we had a Secretary of State for Air, one would have to bring him in too. It is astonishing to find the number of people who have to be brought into the discussion.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will ask those of his colleagues who have a real interest and responsibility in this matter to give more determined thought to the question of detection and punishment of offenders. I wonder whether his


attention has been drawn to the idea which I ventured to put forward in The Times. One way which would lead to rapid detection of offenders would be the offer of a substantial reward. Not only would this be a means of detecting offenders, but it would probably prevent the commission of offences.
If the master of every ship sailing down the Thames Estuary knew that each one of his crew had the chance of a £1,000 reward for providing information if he disposed of oil into the estuary, he would think twice about doing it, and if he still did it and was denounced as the culprit, we need not worry about the £1,000 because that could be added to the fine.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: I assure the hon. Gentleman that this is one of the matters upon which an understanding is being reached in I.M.C.O., which, as the hon. Gentleman appreciates, is London-based. I am sure that his suggestion has not been lost upon it.

Sir S. McAdden: I am glad that notice is being taken of it. It would be a simple and effective way of doing it. I hope that the Minister will consult his colleagues. I know that the Home Secretary is interested in the problem of oil pollution around our coasts. The local authorities, in the main, are doing a good job—all praise to them—and I know that the Government are paying 50 per cent. of the cost of clearing beaches. But the ratepayers have to find the other 50 per cent.
I agree that that is right in principle, since I have never accepted the idea that the State should pay for everything that a local authority spends, otherwise it will be inclined to be more extravagant. But a local authority is entitled to expect the national Government to be thrusting in their endeavours to prevent oil spillages and the drain on ratepayers who, at Southend, had to fork out £2,000 at Whitsun and may have to find another £2,000 this week. I live in Southend, and I am a ratepayer. Naturally, I do not want to continue to see my rates rising due to the failure of the Government to detect and punish offenders who pollute our waters.
I hope to see some action, and I trust that we shall hear about a more firm

drive on the part of the Government to prevent this taking place, rather than concentrating our minds upon great national disasters which probably will never happen. After all, this is now a day-to-day problem, and it is right that we should have immediate action to deal with it.

8.22 p.m.

Dr. Ernest A. Davies: In many ways, I agree with what the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir S. McAdden) has said. When people go to the seaside, they do not expect to find that the beaches on which they want to enjoy their leisure are fouled with oil. Having said that, if the hon. Gentleman insists on going into a Division Lobby against the Government, I shall find myself at odds with him. My hon. Friend has made it clear that all the hon. Gentleman's suggestions are already in hand.
If I join the hon. Gentleman in his views, it is to impress upon my hon. Friend the need to push ahead with proposals for the control of oil spillage at sea and for penalties on people who are guilty of this kind of atrocity. I am satisfied that these matters are being pressed in international circles, and, clearly, they are international in character.
The hon. Gentleman also commented quite favourably on what the Government are doing to assist local authorities. A 50 per cent. grant towards the cost of cleansing a beach is no small support for a local authority faced with the problem when it is remembered that that includes 50 per cent. of the cost of the wages of local authority employees who are detached from their normal duties to carry out the cleansing operation.
I realise how important the problem of beach pollution is to a local authority on the coast. However, it must be borne in mind that there are inland areas who also have pollution problems, and derelict land, who would be only too pleased to have the same kind of grant extended to them.
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman thinks that the Government's conduct in these matters is reasonable and fair.
I turn now to the activity of the Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on Science and Technology. I had the honour and pleasure to be a member and, together with my colleagues, I took a hand


in conducting the investigation into coastal pollution. In his opening remarks, the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) was extremely generous. The Sub-Committee worked together very amicably on what was not altogether a suitable subject for party polemics. I was glad to hear the hon. Gentleman pay tribute to our staff and to some of the witnesses, and that he avoided conducting a post mortem on the "Torrey Canyon" disaster. We members of the Sub-Committee ourselves endeavoured to avoid that.
Towards the end of his opening remarks, he reached the point where he thought that some 16 or so of the Sub-Committee's recommendations had been accepted and acted upon by the Government. If any Select Committee thought that the Government intended to act upon so many of its proposals, it would be delighted to have been so successful. I would have thought that that was adequate repayment for one's endeavours.
The Motion quotes a passage from the evidence of Sir Solly Zuckerman, where he said:
I cannot at the moment name a single Minister who has the responsibility for putting all these recommendations into effect.
I had the doubtful pleasure of putting the question to Sir Solly which elicited that reply. As a result, I feel that I should take up this matter with the hon. Member for Isle of Ely.
The usual thing has happened. An argument has been propounded which covers two or three pages of fairly close print. To select from it an odd sentence does not give the matter anything akin to a true perspective. I will not put it any stronger than that.
Without quoting the whole passage setting out the exchanges between the Sub-Committee and the witness, perhaps I might endeavour to indicate what I believe to be an accurate account of the Sub-Committee's feeling on the subject. We had all seen the memorandum which Sir Solly submitted to the Government. It listed nine subjects for investigation which were thought necessary so that the required knowledge and expertise could be developed to tackle oil pollution, whether it be on the grand and catastrophic scale of the "Torrey Canyon" disaster or on the scale of the

lesser but none the less serious oil spillages.
I was concerned that these projects would not be carried out fully, because there would be no means of checking whether they had been taken up, whether they had been funded, whether staff had been provided and whether projects were seriously in hand in the laboratory or elsewhere.
This was the general sense of the Sub-Committee. We questioned Sir Solly Zuckerman to determine whether he had some responsibility. We further questioned him to try to discover where Ministerial responsibility lay. We were endeavouring to produce evidence to show that these matters would be subject to adequate "progress chasing." For me, the question is not whether any particular or specific mechanism will necessarily give the right answer, but whether the objective which was in my mind, and no doubt in the minds of other Sub-Committee members, will be achieved.
It is a common practice for committees to recommend particular mechanisms when really what they are seeking to achieve is a certain objective. When the Government made their replies to our Report I immediately turned to the question of the conduct of research to see whether assurances of an adequate kind had been given that these research projects were being carried forward. In that connection, I would refer the House to the White Paper in which the Government made their replies and draw attention to paragraph 33 and subsequent paragraphs. Paragraph 36 includes a lengthy list of the research projects, a clear indication and that they are being carried forward, and a clear indication of which Minister is currently responsible for carrying them forward.
That seems to be an adequate reply, if not to the exact words of the Sub-Committee's recommendation, then certainly to what the Sub-Committee was seeking to achieve. Over and above that, the Sub-Committee made recommendations about research projects which were not listed by Sir Solly Zuckerman. I refer particularly to the Annex beginning on page 19. On page 22 item 14 deals with one of our recommendations to the effect
that studies should be undertaken as soon as possible into the design of suitable fittings


on board, and suitable equipment for blowing sinking powder on to the oil".
This is one example of an experimental investigation for which the Sub-Committee asked, and we are told in the reply that the work is already in progress, that sea trials have begun. I cannot think that this evidence is not an adequate reply, sufficient to meet the Sub-Committee's intentions even if it does not do so by using the precise mechanism recommended by the Sub-Committee. I very much regret in the light of all this evidence of active Government response to the recommendations of the Sub-Committee, particularly with regard to research, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman should have gone on to make this the subject of what appeared to be, however briefly, a personal attack on the Prime Minister. That was most regrettable.
There have been comments about the spillages off the English coast recently. These are only very slight compared with what we experienced when the "Torrey Canyon" went aground. They are, nevertheless very injurious to amenity and a source of public expense. I think that it was the hon. and gallant Gentleman who said that the local government system appeared to be creaking when it had to face these problems. That seems to be a rather curious cricitism, because the Ministry of Housing and Local Government would have moved more rapidly in organising the local authorities, and would perhaps have exercised a little more authority if it had not met the request of the Select Committee that we should leave the matter largely to the local authorities to formulate their own schemes—urge them to get on with them—because we appreciated that there were local differences on which local people had the best information.
It seems a pity to say that the local government system is creaking and to blame the Minister for it, when he is keeping in line with the recommendations of the Sub-Committee. I am delighted that the Government have responded to the extent that they have to our recommendations. I am satisfied that, although they have not followed the particular mechanism for pursuing research that we recommended, research is being pursued with adequate vigour. On the general

question of Ministerial responsibility, I accept what my hon. Friend has said about the function of the Ministerial Committee under the chairmanship of the Home Secretary.
I still hold to the opinion that even if a Minister is not literally appointed in advance as we say in our Report, to take charge the moment such a disaster as the "Torrey Canyon" occurs in future, if it ever does, there is certainly a case for a Minister being the repository of the collective knowledge and wisdom of this kind of disaster, and who could present it to that Sub-Committee at short notice. This is a point that could be urge upon the Government.
In view of all this, it would be a very sad business if, in debating this Report, we feel obliged to divide the House on a Motion of censure against the Government. This is a most regrettable step. We could have discussed this Report without taking it in this manner. Having gone through the Government's reply to the Committee's recommendations, I do not find the slightest difficulty in going into the Lobby tonight in support of the Government.

8.39 p.m.

Mr. H. P. G. Channon: As someone who was not a member of the Sub-Committee, I add my thanks to the Committee for the work it did in preparing this massive report. Although, as the hon. Member for Stretford (Dr. Ernest A. Davies) said, some of the later incidents have been slight in national terms, for the local people concerned the problem of oil slicks is becoming increasingly important and serious. Not only did we have a very serious state of affairs in Southend over Whitsun but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir S. McAdden) said, even today we have been threatened.
I understand that, fortunately, none of the oil has reached the beaches. We have been faced with this problem twice in one month. This shows the state of affairs in the Thames Estuary and in Kent, where there have been rumours, and around our costs. The Government should give the highest priority to dealing with this situation.
I am delighted to support what my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) said. It is not so much the cost to the ratepayers of the town or to the national Exchequer which is so serious; it is the cost to traders and business people and hoteliers in coastal towns whose livelihoods can be seriously threatened when disaster of this kind strikes.
What can be done to prevent it? This is a different problem from the "Torrey Canyon" problem. In the Thames Estuary we are faced with the problem of the wilful discharge of oil by masters of tankers. That is not yet proven, but it seems to be almost certain. What action will the Government take more energentically to pursue people who act in this way? It is easy to say that it is very difficult to discover a tanker which has discharged oil, particularly when it is done at night. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East suggested rewards. I hope that we can have some information on that point.
What is the situation if a foreign tanker discharges oil in the Thames Estuary or in coastal waters around our coasts and then goes to its own country? What action will be taken to bring the master and the company to book? What penalties are they likely to face? The Minister was unable to answer my question about penalities.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: It may assist the House if I give the answer to that question now. On summary conviction the maximum fine is £1,000. There is no limit on indictment.

Mr. Channon: I am glad to hear that there is no limit on indictment. This is in respect of an offence by someone who is prosecuted in Britain. But what happens when a foreign tanker does this and is caught but by that time is in Greece, the Lebanon or somewhere else? Will prosecutions be instituted in the country from which it comes? Will the British Government sue the owners of the tanker? I hope we shall have some more information on this matter.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: Is the offence extraditable?

Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend asks whether it is an extraditable offence. In

the case which I have in mind it would probably be a foreigner who was the master of the ship and not a Briton.
Should not there be greater surveillance by the Port of London Authority, particularly in the Thames Estuary? Why should there not be checks, not necessarily on every tanker, but spot checks as the ships leave the estuary? Why should there not be patrols? We are facing an increasingly serious problem in this part of Britain and it is not good enough to imagine that what worked well in the past will work well in the future. Far more energetic action must be taken. We know that it is very expensive for a tanker to stay in port and that it must stay extra time merely to have its tanks cleaned.
The Minister said that the maximum penalty on summary conviction is £1,000. That seems to be very small. It would be interesting to know what convictions there have been for this offence and whether there have been proceedings against people on indictment. Is the question of penalties one of the matters which the Government are considering in the review of legislation? I understand that legislation is delayed because the Sub-Committee decided that we should not rush ahead with it and made a recommendation to that effect. If we are to have legislation, may we be assured that the question of penalties will come into it? Why should not this be an offence for which a master might go to prison if he is caught? These days a fine is not necessarily a sufficient punishment for someone who commits this offence.
What has been done about oil slicks out at sea fairly near the coast? Do the local authorities have responsibility for them? I talk now about the area near the Thames Estuary. Whose responsibility is it to deal with oil slicks two miles or so out at sea and coming in? Is it the local authorities? Is it the responsibility of the Port of London Authority? Should there be some consortia of local authorities to deal with this question? What is going to happen? And is the Minister satisfied about safety regulations in the Thames Estuary? It is, after all, one of the most used of all the waters in the world. What a terrible disaster would occur if there were a collision with a tanker in the Thames Estuary. It would be a disaster 10 or 15


times worse than that which occurred at Southend at Whitsuntide.
I do not wish to detain the House because there are many other hon. Members who wish to speak in the debate, but I am convinced that since the "Torrey Canyon" incident, which was the first occasion to spotlight this sort of disaster in the public imagination, events have shown, and recently, particularly this summer, that this is a problem which is of the utmost importance and one which ought to have the highest priority for the Government.
I am not satisfied, even despite what the hon. Member for Stretford (Dr. Ernest A. Davies) said, and considering Sir Solly Zuckerman's answers, which I have read, with the Ministerial structure in this matter, and I am not at all satisfied that this matter is being pursued with sufficient energy and purpose by the Government. I only wish it were. I should much prefer not to be voting tonight but wholeheartedly supporting the Government in the efforts which they ought to be making. I want the Government to tackle this matter with far more energy and far more purpose than they have shown up to now. When they do they will deserve the support of hon. Members who represent coastal areas and who are the ones primarily concerned about the appalling disasters in recent years, but for the present—and speaking for myself—I shall have no option but to join my hon. Friends in the Division Lobby.

8.47 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: I think that all of us appreciate the strong feelings and sense of responsibility which all hon. Members who represent coastal constituencies have in this matter of oil pollution, and if the debate were only about that it would be a very different debate altogether. But the Motion before us amounts in part to a censure on the Government for not adopting certain recommendations of the Select Committee on Science and Technology.
I have the privilege of being Chairman of the Select Committee, the main Committee which appointed a Sub-Committee which worked so very hard under the chairmanship of the hon.

Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke). I propose, therefore, to deal with the work of the Select Committee on this subject, and with some of the considerations which arise because of the way in which this debate has been brought on tonight.
I would point out to the House that there was a majority of Government supporters on the main Committee. This is the normal practice of the House with all Select Committees. On our Sub-Committee which prepared this Report we had three Labour Members of the House, two Conservatives, and one Liberal, that is including co-opted members. The Report of the Sub-Committee, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, was unanimous, and it was adopted unanimously by the main Committee.
Study of the evidence shows that Government supporters were as critical and as penetrating in their examination of the Executive as Opposition Members. The Government Members of the Committee let no consideration of party advantage or party defence stand in the way of discovering the facts and drawing the appropriate conclusions. This accords with the best practice of Select Committees and, as the hon. Gentleman was good enough to say, it has been my personal endeavour, as Chairman, to foster the good practice that Select Committees should recognise their responsibility to the House as a whole, provided that they are acting within their terms of reference.
Indeed, it was because we were anxious to stress the all-party nature of our work that we appointed the hon. Gentleman Chairman of the Sub-Committee. This has been the case with the inquiries into the nuclear reactor industry, defence research and carbon fibres and the inquiry of our Sub-Committee now looking into the work of the Natural Environmental Research Council. This has been our normal practice, not because we wish to search artificially for agreement at all costs, far from it, but because, given the nature of our work and the subjects under investigation, it is good sense to look at things from a practical, administrative rather than a party point of view.
It is not possible to have a Socialist science and technology or a Conservative science and technology; it is science and


technology. I say this to emphasise how much I regret that this practical report should be the subject of a Motion of Censure with the Whips out on either side, presumably with a three-line summons.
As a good Parliamentarian, I do not challenge the right of the Opposition to treat a committee's report in this way; they have a perfect constitutional right to do so; but I challenge the wisdom of doing it, particularly if they want this new parliamentary experiment of Specialist Select Committees to work well and impartially, as I am sure, in their hearts, they do.
The Opposition cannot complain about the attitude of Labour members of the Select Committee in their contribution to impartiality. I do not wish to stress this more than I need, but it is particularly hard on the Labour members of the Select Committee and especially those who served on the Sub-Committee, my hon. Friends the Members for Stretford (Dr. Ernest A. Davies), and Newark (Mr. Bishop) and the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Dr. David Owen). They now see their once impartial leader on the Sub-Committee brandishing his partisan sword from the Opposition Front Bench.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I take no exception to anything said by the hon. Gentleman up to this point, but I ask him to recall that the Government White Paper commenting on our Report is a Report to the whole House and, like every other hon. Member of the Committee, I am a Member of this House.

Mr. Palmer: I do not challenge the right of the Opposition to do this if they wish to; they are perfectly entitled to do so. Also, the hon. Gentleman can take what personal position he likes. I am not challenging the constitutional propriety, but merely the wisdom of doing so in relation to the work of Select Committees. Had I been in his position, I would have declined the opportunity to speak from the Front Bench and would have taken a more neutral stance and spoken from a back bench.
When reports of Select Committees are presented to the House it is desirable that there should be as much unity as possible of the members of the Com-

mittee, and clearly, under these circumstances, unity is quite impossible. Also, when dealing with scientific and technical matters, if there can be a unanimous approach, it carries more weight with expert opinion outside the House.
As Chairman of the main Committee, I am in some difficulty on this Motion, as I am expected to represent the corporate view of the Committee, and I therefore intend to abstain. I do not feel that I have any right to do other than that. My hon. Friends will decide for themselves what to do and they may well feel that they have been absolved from any responsibility by the attitude of the Opposition, but the Chairman is in a somewhat different position.

Mr. Eric Ogden: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind in his decision on how to vote that this is a censure Motion against the Government and that there may be those outside the House who are more than prepared to use his abstention on what he regards as perfectly valid grounds as an opportunity to say that even the Chairman of the main Committee abstained and may, therefore, be presumed to have been supporting the Opposition Motion of censure?

Mr. Palmer: I have already decided my own attitude, which is that I have a responsibility towards the Committee as a whole. I hope that I am not taking myself too seriously, but I intend to take that course, although as I have said, I do not think for a moment that it applies to my hon. Friends, who have clearly been absolved by the partisan attitude of the Opposition from any kind of responsibility for the unity of the Committee.
What I have said in criticism of the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely does not mean that I do not admire his hard work and that of other members of the Sub-Committee. At the beginning of the Report there was a preamble to say that the Committee wished
to express their deep gratitude to those of their members who, although already engaged in another major inquiry, so willingly undertook to carry out this additional inquiry, asked for by the Government, over a period of some 15 months as members of the Sub-Committee on Coastal Pollution.
At that time we were investigating the nuclear reactor industry.
I am opposed, generally speaking, to the Executive via the House referring subjects to a Select Committee which are outside the Committee's choosing, because if too much of that kind of thing is done, it means that the Government are determining the work of the Select Committee and not the Select Committees themselves. But the question before us tonight is whether the Government should carry out a particular recommendation. I have no doubt on the evidence given of the technical soundness of the recommendation. But the responsibility for adopting the recommendation is the Government's. I have never argued that every recommendation of a Select Committee should automatically become Government policy, because if that were the practice, a Select Committee would be the Government.
But if the Government cannot accept a recommendation of a Select Committee, the Select Committee and the House as a whole deserve a full explanation of why a recommendation cannot be applied. In fairness to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, he has gone to the trouble to publish a White Paper about our Report. This is not often done. On the hon. Member's own showing, out of 21 recommendations 16 have been accepted. He took a more favourable view than I, for I made it 15 only. I tend to read these things without the optimism which he displayed. I do not think that the circumstances on any showing justify the whole ponderous mechanism of a Motion of censure being brought into action. By doing this, the Opposition make the House look ridiculous, and they are certainly not helping the Select Committee system to work well.
Naturally, I should be much happier if the whole 21 recommendations had been adopted. We would have been in a much stronger position to have got the Government to accept the outstanding points in due course if it had not been for the way that the House and the Committee are to be divided tonight. I appeal to the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely, with the influence which I know that he exerts on his own leaders, not to press this matter to a Division. Logically, if he and his right hon. and hon. Friends take it to a Division, they are really

saying that the Select Committee and all the work that it has done and all the work that the hon. Gentleman has done has not been successful. In fact, it has been extremely successful. The hon. Gentleman should acknowledge this by withdrawing the Motion.

9.1 p.m.

Mr. John Pardoe: I support the Motion, and I wish, briefly, to explain why.
I am sorry that it should have become a matter for party political conflict, because in the Sub-Committee, of which I was a member, there was a total degree of all party agreement. But the Government have only themselves to blame for this Motion being put down. I, and many other members of the Sub-Committee, have on several occasions over many months asked the Government to provide time for a debate on the Report. It is months since their own White Paper appeared. Yet, we have not debated either the Report or the extremely important principle and subject which gave rise to it, namely, the whole problem of oil pollution. One can hardly pick up a paper, whether a regional or a daily one, any day and not find a reference to oil pollution somewhere or other.
In passing, I say to the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke), who I much admired as Chairman of the Sub-Committee, that I think his position on the Opposition Front Bench somewhat strange. I hope that it does not become a precedent that chairmen of Select Committees—which, after all, represent back benchers to a large extent—immediately step up to the Front Bench when their own Report is debated. This would be a grave error of judgment.
The debate this evening does not concentrate on the "Torrey Canyon". Nor, indeed, did our Report. We were discussing and investigating the broad issues of oil pollution in the light of the "Torrey Canyon" incident. Not only through being a member of the Committee, but representing a constituency which was very much affected by the "Torrey Canyon" oil, I remember wading through what seemed like thick chocolate over some of the most beautiful beaches in Europe. But the "Torrey Canyon" episode is not the primary point at issue tonight. The


issue is the Government's reply to our recommendations.
The extraordinary reflex action which seems to make any Government, when criticised, immediately run for cover fills me with abject despair at the whole process of government in this country. We were not even bitterly critical of this Government, or, indeed, of any Government. We made some critical comments about the machinery of government and also about the lack of preparations. These were not criticisms of any Government of a particular political persuasion, but of successive Governments. These criticisms were not made in any political way; they were made, if at all, of perhaps some of the faceless men behind all Governments.
It was, unfortunately, these people who were offended and these, I suspect, who wrote into the White Paper that much of the criticism is ill-founded. It is the kind of reflex action that is found whenever there is criticism of any Government. To all Governments, criticism is ill-founded.
I want to concentrate my brief remarks on the recommendations concerning administration and co-ordination, but particularly the first:
that one senior Minister be given the responsibility for general supervision and co-ordination of the work in the field of research including international co-ordination and that a highly qualified scientific officer be put in charge of the continuing scientific effort.
The Government's reply to this is contained in paragraphs 40 to 47 of the White Paper. Basically, they say that the provisions for co-ordination and supervision are adequate. With the deepest respect to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, I think that his presence here shows just how lacking the Government are in a Minister with complete specialist expertise in this field. I am not quite sure why this comes under the Home Office, and, with due respect to him, I think that the hon. Gentleman's speech showed that he was not at all sure, either.
The Government are condemned, not only as a result of the hon. Gentleman's speech, but out of their own White Paper, because it was desperately at pains to point out what was being done, and who was doing it, but when one goes through the list of things that have been done,

and the list of the various Departments that are doing it, one finds that the various Ministries, committees and Departments involved make up a veritable tutti-frutti del mare. They are spawned in these pages about as prolifically as a lobster spawns her eggs, and with as little chance that many of them will hatch. I do not doubt that the research is being done. Of course it is. What I wonder, and what I wonder about the whole of our recommendations is whether this research, or our recommendations will ever be used or implemented.
On looking at the White Paper, starting at page 9, I make it that in the following eight pages there are no fewer than 18 different organisations, committees and Departments mentioned. I am by no means sure to whom all these people are responsible. I hope that the Minister might tell us. For instance, I still cannot find out exactly who is responsible for our relationship with I.M.C.O. We are told in paragraph 24 that representatives of the United Kingdom are taking a prominent part. I am told that it is the Foreign Office who appoint them, so we can start from there.
On page 10, we have a reference to negotiations between the countries bordering on the North Sea. I suppose that this again is the Foreign Office. In paragraph 26, there is mention of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, the Scottish Development Department and the Welsh Office. That makes five. Later, in that paragraph there is a reference to the Armed Services, so that makes six, bringing in the Ministry of Defence. In the following paragraph, paragraph 27, we find No. 7, Nature Conservancy. I am sorry to be ignorant, but I am not sure who is responsible for that, either. We then go on on page 12 to the eighth, the Committee of Scientists under Sir Solly Zuckerman. The Minister of Power comes in on the act with his Ministry's chief scientist. Then there is the Ministerial Sub-Committee on Hazardous Cargoes. No. 11 is the Ministry of Technology, and then we have the Ministry of Agriculture as well.
Then there are the Natural Environment Research Council, the Marine Biological Association, the Rocket Propulsion Establishment, the Ministry of Technology's Hydraulics Research Station,


the Co-ordinating Committee on the Prevention of Sea Pollution, and the Working Group on Pollution of the North Sea. I think that I have the lot and, frankly, I do not see how anything good will come out of that mish-mash.
It is because I believe that there is a desperate need for co-ordination in this field—and this was why we made our first recommendation—that the Government are at fault in not accepting our recommendations. The fact is that there are many cases of oil pollution all the time. The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely mentioned two coastal tanker incidents every week. He listed some of the incidents which have been seen off the coasts of Britain in the last months, but he missed one event, because, incredibly enough, on 12th May the unladen British tanker, the 1,178-ton "Hemsley I", went aground in dense fog near Padstow, very near where the "Torrey Canyon" landed up. It was bound for Antwerp to be broken up for scrap. The crew signalled that they were on the Lizard, and it was several hours before it was discovered that they were off Padstow. Oil was leaked from the tanker—although, luckily, it was basically empty—over several days and a great cleaning up job had to be done.
Very little of this appeared in the national Press. I do not know whether that shows the good public relations of the Cornwall County Council. Little damage was done, but the ship might have been full. From the arrangements that I have seen—this is no criticism of the local authorities, which did a good job—if there had been a great deal of oil, there would have been the most hopeless chaos, at least as bad as with the "Torrey Canyon".
The Government should think again. I hope that the fact that the Opposition have put down this Motion does not mean, as the Chairman of the Sub-Committee thought, that the Government will not shift their opinion. If we ran the country so that, whenever the Opposition suggested anything, the Government promptly did the opposite, we should get nowhere.

Mr. Palmer: I was saying that if the members of the Select Committee could all have worked together to cut pressure

on the Government in a practical field the chances of success would have been greater.

Mr. Pardoe: There is no reason why these pressures should not have been brought several months ago in the debate on Government time, but we did not have the opportunity.
We are now probably reaching the point at which we need a Ministry of Oceanology. There is a vast scope here, with a host of problems from all departments of Government. They include fish farming, where we are on the threshold of a tremendous expansion over the next 25 years, mineral developments and the whole problem of pollution. There are tremendous opportunities in the development of oceanology because of our large Continental Shelf and the North Sea which is rich in food. Pollution is only part of the job. I hope that the Government will take into account what has been said tonight and bring together these 18 disparate elements under one senior Minister.

9.12 p.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I could agree with the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) in one thing—that it is a pity that time was not found to debate this matter before. We could go into this in great detail, but I would only put this view, which is widely shared in the House—that there should be a time limit beyond which reports by Select Committees should not go undebated. I should have thought that that would be reasonable, because these things must be fresh and a great deal of work is put into them, that no Select Committee Report should be undebated after 40 Parliamentary days. That would seem a reasonable time limit; if it had been done in this case, much of the misunderstanding might not have arisen.
I was also interested in the hon. Member's view that we need a Minister of Oceanology, as he put it, or, without being too pedantic, of the Marine Environment, as I would put it. This also has been widely supported in the House. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy, who is present, should have this portfolio. Since it is dangerous to proliferate Ministers, it is the Navy which often has the ultimate responsibility and it is to the


Navy that major responsibility should be given perhaps in these matters, Ministerially diverse by their very nature.
As one who represents a coastal area, where there is and has been for many years serious oil pollution opposite Rosyth, I could sypmathise with both hon. Members from Southend in their constituency worries. I have one reflection—if any penalties are to be imposed, let them by penalties of compensation rather than of fines, because, so often, these things are at least excused as attributable to accidents and fines are often small fry in relation to the damage done. One suspects that if it were a question of compensation there would be pressure from the insurance companies to make skipper and others responsible more careful, and active about preventing pollution.
Many hon. Members still wish to speak and I will, therefore, be brief. I have sat listening to the debate for two-and-a-quarter hours becoming more and more bewildered and puzzled about how on earth, on the basis of the speeches made by hon. Gentlemen opposite, we should be faced with a Motion of Censure. What is this all about?
The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) was, as usual, apparently honest in the views he presented and the interesting detail he went into. He was generous and courteous enough to accept that 16 of the Select Committee's recommendations had been accepted. Then I got the suspicion. Perhaps there was a rather bewildering and devious explanation about why we should be faced with a Motion of Censure. Following the speech of the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely I listened with interest to the speeches of other hon. Gentlemen opposite, but they did not make the reason for the Motion any clearer.
It suddenly dawned on me, and the cat had been let out of the bag. I am now of the opinion that this is not quite as easy of explanation as it looks on the surface. I feel much less charitable about what I regard as a far more sinister explanation; that it was decided by the powers that be on the benches opposite, the hierarchy of the Conservative Party, that it would be a good thing to give the general impression that the Opposition

were active and keen about pollution problems while the Government were being lazy and inert over them. Thus censure.
If this is not the truthful explanation, why should we be faced with a Motion of Censure, since the substance of what has been produced so far has been purely frivolous? [Interruption.] We have merely had a devaluation of the whole system of the Motion of Censure because nothing substantial has been said to warrant the use of one of the most serious acts by an Opposition in our Parliamentary democracy.
I am, therefore, led to the conclusion that this is nothing but a squalid political manœuvre. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] What other explanation is there for it? I will willingly give way to any hon. Gentleman opposite who will explain the basis for this Motion of Censure. I have listened carefully to the arguments put forward by way of censure by hon. Gentlemen opposite and their comments have been frivolous and trivial in the extreme. I can only assume this to be a squalid political manœuvre to which the hon. Members for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price) and Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) should not have lent their names.

9.18 p.m.

Mr. Antony Buck: It is a pity that the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) should have polluted the debate by the use of such extreme language. This has not been a frivolous debate and if the hon. Gentleman thinks that it has been, he cannot have been paying attention to it.

Mr. Dalyell: Why the Motion of censure?

Mr. Buck: The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe), for example, pointed out that there were 18 authorities dealing with oil pollution matters and that the Government had not taken any steps to bring them within one organisation. That is a matter of grave concern which warrants the House being disturbed over this matter. It is, therefore, absurd for the hon. Gentleman to use such extreme language; and he should not be so thin-skinned about matters of this kind. This is an appropriate issue for a Motion of censure, particularly when a Select Committee has


made important recommendations which have not been acted upon.
It seems a very thin-skinned attitude for the hon. Member to take up.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: He has never grown up.

Mr. Buck: I agree with my hon. Friend. Sir Solly Zuckerman was asked:
Am I right in assuming that you as Chief Scientific Adviser to the Government have no power or even right to attempt to take charge of the general supervision of the research that you have recommended?
He replied:
At the moment, I have no right.
So far as I know he has not been given that right, which he clearly wanted and ought to have had. The general case has been made for the Government to have acted, but they have not done so and that is a pity.
My constituency has a certain amount of coastline and I am desperately concerned about reports which we have almost weekly of oil pollution. Our neighbours in Southend twice in the last few weeks have had to cope with this problem. I have a constituency interest because, as was revealed in the Report, inland waters and those which are enclosed are particularly vulnerable to pollution. As far as I am aware no estuary where there are oysters, shellfish and inland fish has been contaminated to a considerable extent and we hope that this will not happen. It would be a tragedy if a bad slick were to go into the Blackwater and the surrounding oyster beds near Colchester, in the Pyfleet Channel and around Mersea Island.
I doubt whether the Government are tackling this matter with proper energy. I hope that in the Minister's winding-up speech we shall be given a great deal of information about the result of current programmes of research. What are the latest figures concerning prosecutions under the Oil in Navigable Waters Act, 1955? How many prosecutions have there been on indictment and how many by proceeding summarily? What have been the penalties imposed over the last convenient period? We need to know that the Government are pursuing the matter with energy.
It is a tragedy that our beautiful coastlines should be desecrated by oil so

frequently. We as an island community feel this very deeply. What energetic action has been taken within the framework of the Act? Is the Minister satisfied that defences given to masters of vessels do not give them too much right to defend actions brought against them?
What is the latest position on research? One of the tragedies is that in a constituency such as mine the waters are so vulnerable. They are enclosed and the worse thing that could happen would be to use detergent in them. As was pointed out in paragraph 74 of the Report:
Detergents do not destroy oil—they merely disperse it. Once the oil is emulsified, it ceases to be merely a surface layer, and becomes instead an actual part of the aqueous environment, where it may be taken into the gills of fish or ingested by filter-feeding organisms. Thus, where marine life is concerned in shallow or confined water, the use of detergents constitutes a 'cure' worse than the 'disease' itself.
What is to be done if an oil slick occurs near Mersea Island? What is the result of experiments on the use of booms? My information is that booms are effective only where there is a low wave level, but there have been experiments recently about this and I should be pleased to know the results.
A recommendation was made about co-operation with the Army. My constituency is a garrison town. On all occasions, when on a local matter, the Army has been asked to co-operate it has done so fully. Such, indeed, would be the case if we were to have the disaster of an oil slick on the beaches of East Mersea or West Mersea, or coming up the Colne or into the Blackwater.
The negotiations already conducted by the county authorities show that the county authorities will have to indemnify the Army against all costs and against any damage or injury. One of those who is in command of the county services relative to this matter said that, if he borrowed a helicopter to go and see what the position was concerning an oil slick, and if the helicopter crashed, the county council would have to pay for another.
I have little doubt that the Army would not, in fact, call upon the county authority to pay. Why is there the necessity for this indemnity, because the county authorities are concerned about the whole matter of paying for the use of Army services. What is the position about the


recommendation made by the Select Committee regarding the training of Army personnel? It was a specific recommendation which is neither adopted nor discarded in the White Paper.
We should be glad to know also what is the position concerning the use of dispersants other than detergents? What is the current state of play relative to the experiments which have been going on into other ways dispersing the oil and disposing of it?
Finally, if the Government are pursuing the matter with the urgency with which it should be pursued, what is the state of negotiations with other nations, particularly France? This matter is mentioned in the White Paper, but we should like a progress report on it.
If satisfactory answers can be given to all these matters, if the Government announce tonight that they are prepared to put all these matters under one Minister so that they can be properly co-ordinated instead of there being 16 or 18 different authorities, and if the Government will also co-ordinate research, I should not dream of voting against the Government. However, unless they do that, with a heavy heart, for this should not be a party matter, but none the less convinced that I am right, I shall vote against the Government.

9.27 p.m.

Mr. David Price: On behalf of the whole House, I congratulate and thank our colleagues on the Sub-Committee who conducted this thorough and extensive inquiry into the problems of coastal pollution. It is a major report which any Government would be well advised to take seriously.
I delayed attempting to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so that this short debate could be continued a little longer by other hon. Members. I want straight away to answer the general question which has been asked from the other side of the House—why have the Opposition tabled this Motion? The answer, briefly, is the inadequacy of the reply given by the Government in Cmnd. 3880 dated January, 1969. My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) gave some of the reasons why we find that reply inadequate. In the time available to me I shall develop my hon. Friend's argument further.
Before doing so, however, I want to reply to a point which has been made by the Under-Secretary and a number of other hon. Members with whom I have the honour to serve on the main Select Committee. They have argued that the Report of a Select Committee should only be noted and should never be voted upon. That can be argued. It can be argued that thus the spirit of all-party Select Committee is maintained and that that spirit is broken if the Opposition of the day table a Motion in support of a Select Committee's recommendation and critical of the Government's reply.
I disagree profoundly, particularly in view of the terms of reference that the House, in my view rightly, gives to Select Committees nowadays, enabling Select Committees, not to do a sort of hindsight audit, but to look at the future. I find nothing wrong in such action. I go further. I find everything to commend itself in such action. If the reports of Select Committees are only to be noted, Governments will know that they need not take such reports any more seriously than they are minded to do at that moment of time, because they know that they can never be hooked on those reports.
I do not believe that the object of Select Committees is merely to find work for energetic back benchers. Our Select Committees are an important part of the machinery of the House. In particular, in the great field of science and technology, the Select Committee is able to inquire into complex matters which do not lend themselves readily to general debate in the first instance and thus provide the basis, we hope, for better informed debate in due course.
If such debate is to have meaning in terms of influencing the Government, it is entirely right, in my view, that debate should take place on Motions critical of the Government when such criticism seems justified to the official Opposition or, indeed, to any group of hon. Members. That seems entirely proper, and on this occasion we on this side—I am glad that the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) agrees with us—consider that our Motion is entirely justified.
We are delighted that the Government have accepted a substantial number of the recommendations, but that in no way alters our view that those which they


have not accepted are the most important in the whole Report. Recommendation (1) is:
that one senior Minister be given the responsibility for general supervision and co-ordination of the work in the field of research, including international co-ordination, and that a highly qualified scientific officer be put in charge of the continuing scientific effort".
The Government reject that recommendation on the ground that the diversity of scientific fields involved means that
research projects have to be carried out in a wide range of establishments, which are the responsibility of different Ministers or Research Councils.
Perfectly true. But the Select Committee was not suggesting that the single responsible Minister should himself carry out the research within his own Department. The recommendation spoke of "general supervision and co-ordination". So the technical fact of diversity of project is no answer to the recommendation. The observations of the hon. Member for Cornwall, North supported the case for the need for such a single Minister with powers of general supervision and co-ordination.
The Government themselves recognised that that was no answer because, later in the same paragraph of their Observations, paragraph 46, they said:
… there is a Committee, also under the chairmanship of the Chief Scientific Adviser, which meets regularly to co-ordinate and review"—
I ask the House to mark these words—
the whole field of the Government's scientific and technological policy".
No doubt that is true. But I ask the House whether a general review of the whole field of the Government's scientific and technological policy—everything from radio astronomy to medical research and the rest—is a substitute for the supervision and co-ordination of research work directed to the particular problem of oil pollution. Nor is the chief scientific adviser in any position to supervise or co-ordinate the research work, as he himself made abundantly clear in his replies to a number of questions, notably Question No. 257. Clearly, the chief scientific adviser cannot supervise and co-ordinate the research work on oil pollution.
Later, in paragraph 46 of their Observations, the Government tell us that the

Home Secretary, as chairman of the Ministerial Sub-Committee on Hazardous Cargoes, has "general responsibility for co-ordination". I assume that that includes scientific co-ordination; I concede that point to the Government though they did not spell it out. Do I take it, therefore, that in practice the Government accept recommendation (1) and that the Home Secretary as a senior Minister has been given responsibility for the general supervision and co-ordination of research projects in oil pollution?
If the answer is yes, I ask the Government why they rejected the recommendation. If the Home Secretary has this responsibility and has accepted it, I ask him, through his Under-Secretary of State, what he has done, what he is doing, and what he will continue to do to supervise research and co-ordinate work in some of the following problems: research into means for speedy transfer of the cargo from a stranded tanker; research into methods of firing oil in stranded tankers and on the sea surface; research into the effects of natural factors on the movement, dispersal and destruction of oil at sea; research into oil sinking, scavenging and gelling agents; research into more effective but less toxic detergents; research into detergent spraying and other cleansing equipment; research into mechanical methods of removing oil both from the sea surface and from beaches; research into cheap and effective booms, primarily for protecting harbours and inlets; research into effects of pollution on marine life, seabirds and coastal vegetation and on ways of minimising them. The House will recognise that I have been reading the list of major projects for further research suggested in the Zuckerman Report.
Is the Home Secretary in charge of and supervising such research? If he is not, who is? Sir Solly certainly is not in charge, and he made that clear in his evidence. He was asked, in Question 253:
Am I right in assuming that you as Chief Scientific Adviser to the Government have no power or even right to attempt to take charge of the general supervision of the research that you have recommended?
His answer was:
At the moment I have no right".
Who has the right?
It is clear that the Select Committee was correct to recommend single Ministerial responsibility for general supervision and co-ordination of research work into these problems. It is equally clear that the Government were wrong to reject that recommendation.
The second recommendation which followed the first, namely,
… that one Minister be designated to take immediate charge of any major oil tanker disaster requiring emergency action by the Government".
Apparently, this recommendation caused great offence to the Government. I do not know why. It is a perfectly simple and obvious recommendation.
We find a very stuffy comment in paragraph 40 of the Government's observations:
The Select Committee did not have before them any memorandum on machinery of government, nor did they seek evidence from those directly concerned with the general arrangements for emergencies.
That was quoted again by the Under-Secretary of State today.
The latter observation is false, as the Sub-Committee took extensive evidence from the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy, both of whom played a key part in dealing with the consequences of the wreck of the "Torrey Canyon" and with the general arrangements. In addition, the Sub-Committee took extensive evidence from many of the officials most closely concerned in the events.
Listening to the Under-Secretary of State and to the Government's replies, there are times when I doubt whether the authors of that Report studied the evidence presented to the Sub-Committee. Furthermore, the Government's observation is unctious and patronising. If the Government feel this, the Prime Minister must not be surprised if future Select Committees and sub-committees summon him to appear before them.
On the substantial issue, the Government seem satisfied with the existing arrangements whereby general responsibility remains with the Ministerial Committee on Emergencies under the chairmanship of the Home Secretary. Is that sufficient? I cannot believe that anyone who has studied all the evidence presented to the Sub-Committee could

doubt that in the case of a major oil wreck it is essential that one pre-designated Minister must be put in charge and that he and his staff must be given a proper opportunity to plan for such an emergency.
Perhaps I might remind the House of what the Sub-Committee said in paragraph 47 of its Report, because the Under-Secretary of State made no effort in his speech to deal with the arguments deployed in that paragraph.

Mr. Dalyell: Will the hon. Gentleman say precisely what he thinks is unctuous in the Report?

Mr. Price: The hon. Gentleman, who has given me a lot of his attention, must have missed the point when I quoted the paragraph. However, I have not time to repeat it now. He will be able to read it in HANSARD.
As the Under-Secretary of State seems to be reluctant to accept my comments on the importance of paragraph 47, I will read it to him:
The Under Secretary for Defence, Royal Navy, told us on 2nd April 'If one is looking ahead to the future as to where authority should lie, this would open up a wider field of the involvement of Central Government and Local Government and the extent to which the armed forces are there to complement initiatives taken locally or as a substitute for them'. He went on to point out that the Ministry of Housing and Local Government had already started a whole series of negotiations with the Local Authorities to this end. The progress since May has been considerable. We note, however, that no decision appears yet to have been taken regarding the appointment of one Minister with general over-riding powers to act as General Director of Operations to deal with future major disasters. Bearing in mind the desirability of such a Minister having some comprehension of the expertise required, we consider that one Minister should be designated to take immediate charge of any major oil tanker disaster requiring emergency action by the Government. That Mr. Foley was able to act so effectively in the case of the Torrey Canyon points to the importance of his having been given authority by the Prime Minister to take decisions and make recommendations on the spot.
It is in support of the hon. Gentleman's experience that the Select Committee recommended the designation of one Minister and that we on this side of the House cannot understand why the Government have turned down that recommendation. That is why we have tabled the Motion. That seems to be quite straightforward.
In view of what the Government said in their White Paper and the whole tenor of the speech of the Under-Secretary of State today, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the Government have answered Ogden Nash's famous question in the affirmative. The House will recall the question:
Why did the Lord give us so much quickness of movement unless it was to avoid responsibility?
Recommendation (9) of the Report says:
that national action be taken to rechart by modern methods the comparatively few known major hazards which lie within or closely adjacent to the main seaways along which tankers normally ply.
The Government reject this recommendation as being unrealistic. They state that its cost would be prohibitive, that sea-bed movements, sedimentation in most areas, would require constant re-surveys all for hypothetical purposes of salvage.
In my view, the Government have ignored two important facts. The first is the evidence of Mr. Flett, the Chief Salvage Officer, Royal Navy, and particularly his answers to Questions 497 and 525, in which he concurred with the view that charts are not accurate and that ultrasonic techniques, modern Asdic equipment could well be used.
The second fact the Government have ignored is that the recommendation referred to modern methods. I have in mind particularly the hydrographic hovercraft developed by Hovermarine in conjunction with Decca. This, many of us believe, could revolutionise the scale of work undertaken by the Naval Hydro-graphic Department and vastly increase its cost effectiveness. I suggest that the Home Secretary talks to the Navy Department and to the Ministry of Technology about this.

Dr. Ernest A. Davies: The hon. Gentleman is making a point about the charting of hazards. I hope that he will make it clear that there is no dispute about the position in the sea of the hazards, and that what Mr. Flett was talking about was the accurate, detailed profile, measured perhaps in inches and feet across a piece of rock over which a vessel would normally never attempt

to cross. He says this is an important distinction.

Mr. Price: I accept that. It in no way invalidates my argument.
The real test of the criticisms of the Government's action is a simple one of practice. How well do the Government's arrangements work? We had the recent case of the "Hamilton Trader" before us, where 700 tons of oil escaped from this tanker after a collision with a German coaster, when the "Hamilton Trader" was anchored near the Bar Light in Liverpool Bay. Compared with the "Torrey Canyon" this was a small incident, but it could, nevertheless, have had serious consequences upon the coasts of North-West Lancashire and Cheshire, and only a fortuitous combination of easterly and south-westerly winds saved those coasts.
But Cumberland was affected—40 or 50 miles of its coastline. I draw the attention of the House to the report of the Lancashire and Western Sea Fisheries Joint Committee on the lessons to be learned from the incident of the "Hamilton Trader". First, it shows in a number of serious omissions in the circular of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government giving guidance or help on technical matters, fishery or biology. It goes on to say:
In the event of any oil spill from a known source, the company concerned will take all possible steps to alleviate damage or pollution.…
It does not know how to get in touch.
The Report talks about early warning and praises the part played by the coastguards, but it goes on to say:
… the provision of a co-ordinating centre which could deal with communications on a 24-hour basis would be most desirable and relieve the Coastguards of a considerable burden.
It goes on to deal with the problem of the reconnaissance and tracking of slicks and the whole question of the responsibility for treating oil at sea.
The Report says:
At the moment very little guidance exists as to whose responsibility it is to tackle oil slicks at sea.
It points out that the Ministry of Housing and Local Government guidance about the local authority having to be ready


and responsible to deal with oil within, say, a mile of the coast, is quite inadequate.
It deals with the whole question of the use of aircraft and who pays for aero-reconnaissance, which is obviously the best way of dealing with oil slicks before they reach our coasts. It deals too with the problem of sampling and identification, which again ties up with the research problem. I hope that the Under-Secretary will tell us who is responsible there.
I conclude by inviting the House to vote for the Motion tonight. It supports the unanimous recommendations of the Select Committee on the matter of Ministerial responsibility. It rejects the Government's refusal to accept those recommendations. I cannot believe that any hon. or right hon. Member, except those on the Treasury Bench, could find anything controversial at all in the Motion. It is a statement of the blindingly obvious. It is, therefore, a straight issue of supporting our own Select Committee or supporting "the thoughts of Chairman Jim".

Mr. David Crouch: I do not wish to waste time, and certainly not the time of the Under-Secretary of State, but I put it to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that in a debate of only three hours in which the Under-Secretary has spoken for 33 minutes it would have been much more helpful to you and to the House if he had made an intervention as an example—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): That is not a point of order. It is a matter for the Minister.

9.50 p.m.

Mr. Elystan Morgan: It was only in answer to specific exhortations by hon. Members that I decided to reply to this debate. I respectfully point out to the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) that the sum total of time taken by his hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench was in the region of one hour.
As someone who has the honour of representing a maritime constituency, I am well aware of the exasperations and persistent problem presented by oil pollution. Tonight's debate deals with the whole span of possibilities. I referred to in-
cidents caused by the action of the masters of ships in clearing out the tanks of ships returning to the oil field as minor. I appreciate that for the beach which receives clods of oils the size of cricket balls it is anything but a minor incident. However, compared with an emergency calling for the deployment of national resources and causing complete dislocation of the life of a wide community, in that sense only would I distinguish it from the other type of incident by calling it minor.
The Opposition wish to include in their consideration not only local incidents which give rise to national hazards. They have put forward the argument that these hazards constitute so unique a circumstance as to demand that they should be dealt with in a very special way, in a way which they have not proposed for dealing with any other hazard in any other field, irrespective of the threat to life or damage to property. They say that oil pollution, whether it be minor pollution or a major national disaster, is such a problem as to demand that it should be dealt with in a unique way. It is for the House to decide whether they have discharged that very substantial burden of proof.
I wish to deal briefly with one or two specific points. My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Dr. Ernest A. Davies), in a very fair and balanced speech, said that the collective wisdom of researchers and the fruit of their studies should be made available to the Ministries concerned with this problem. That is exactly what takes place. The Government's Chief Scientific Officer is a member of the Ministerial Committee on hazardous cargoes and therefore is able to feed back to this Ministerial Committee, which has corporate responsibility in this field, a report of the co-ordinated activity of the various research departments operating in this field.
The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) raised many questions—and I have not time to reply to all of them—dealing with the problem of the detection of masters of ships who are responsible for deliberately causing spillages. He asked who was responsible for this matter. It is the overall responsibility of the Board of Trade, except that harbour authorities are responsible for bringing prosecutions for offences committed


in their own waters. I understand that in practice most of the 50 or so prosecutions which take place annually are brought by harbour authorities because the evidence is usually readily available and facts are very rarely in dispute.
However, the Board has arrangements whereby it receives reports of ships suspected of oil pollution offences at sea. If a ship is bound for a United Kingdom port, arrangements are made for it to be inspected on arrival by a Board of Trade surveyor. If the ship is British it is prosecuted if sufficient evidence is available. Foreign ships are reported to their own Governments under the Convention of 1954, if the Government are one of the 38 Governments which are parties to the Convention. Within the last few months convictions have been secured against the Liberian-registered ship "Australis" and the Indian-registered ship "Adi Jayanti" for oil pollution offences in our territorial waters. Apart from inspections connected with specific reports, Board of Trade surveyors carry out many routine inspections of ships for evidence of oil pollution offences, and I understand that about 2,500 inspections a year are carried out altogether.
The hon Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) mentioned a demonstration which is to take place, understand, on Wednesday of this week, and said that certain equipment which will there be put on show is obsolete. I understand that this is certainly not the case. I can only tell him that that is my very specific instruction in this matter.
I was asked to deal with the number of prosecutions. Instead of going into detail there I would merely say that they tend to average, as I have said, about 50 a year.
Time will not permit me to deal with the very interesting point which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), but I take his point that unless negligence or deliberate action can be shown the question of absolute liability is one which could, in theory at any rate, lead to far more substantial compensation being made possible.

The case which is made by the Opposition is that in so far as research projects are concerned it is necessary for a senior official or a senior Minister to be given executive responsibility. I put to hon. and right hon. gentlemen opposite this consideration, that by the setting up of such a system a new Ministry, of necessity, would be created, a Ministry which would cut completely through the existing Departmental responsibilities of other Ministeries. If they say that that is not the case and that they do not want to vest such a senior Minister with executive responsibilities, then we would have the exact co-ordinative responsibility which the Home Secretary has in relation to the Ministerial Committee on hazardous cargoes and emergencies.

Then the second leg of their case is that it would be proper beforehand to designate a subordinate Minister who should be responsible for a particular emergency in this field. There are two points I want to make very briefly here. First, it is impossible for any Government to prognosticate the exact type of the emergency which might occur in this situation; and second, the emergency itself will develop through many different stages, and in such circumstances it might be necessary to have a succession of junior Ministers responsible.

In my innocence I was wondering how a Motion which was set out in such strident terms could be justified, but when the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely mentioned the Prime Minister I recognised that this was another squalid attempt to hurl a clod of mud at his reputation.

Question put:—
That this House, noting the evidence given to the Select Committee on Science and Technology on Coastal Pollution by the Chief Scientific Adviser to the Government, in which he stated: 'I cannot at the moment name a single Minister who has the responsibility for putting all these recommendations into effect', regrets that Her Majesty's Government have refused to accept the unanimous recommendations of the Select Committee on Ministerial responsibility for preventing and dealing with further cases of coastal pollution.

The House divided: Ayes 232, Noes 280.

Division No. 266.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Astor, John
Baker, Kenneth (Acton)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Awdry, Daniel
Batsford, Brian




Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Bell, Ronald
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Nott, John


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Onslow, Cranley


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Biffen, John
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Biggs-Davison, John
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Black, Sir Cyril
Hastings, Stephen
Pardoe, John


Blaker, Peter
Hawkins, Paul
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W)
Hay, John
Percival, Ian


Body, Richard
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Peyton, John


Bossom, Sir Clive
Heseltine, Michael
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Higgins, Terence L.
Pink, R. Bonner


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Hiley, Joseph
Pounder, Rafton


Braine, Bernard
Hill, J. E. B.
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Brewis, John
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Holland, Philip
Prior, J. M. L.


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hooson, Emlyn
Pym, Francis


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hordern, Peter
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Bryan, Paul
Hornby, Richard
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Hunt, John
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Burden, F. A.
Iremonger, T. L.
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Ridley, Hn, Nicholas


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Robson Brown, Sir William


Carlisle, Mark
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Royle, Anthony


Channon, H. P. G.
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Chataway, Christopher
Jopling, Michael
Scott, Nicholas


Chichester-Clark, R.
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Scott-Hopkins, James


Clark, Henry
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Sharples, Richard


Clegg, Walter
Kerby, Capt, Henry
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Cooke, Robert
Kershaw, Anthony
Silvester, Frederick


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Kimball, Marcus
Sinclair, Sir George


Cordle, John
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Corfield, F. V.
Kitson, Timothy
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Costain, A. P.
Lambton, Viscount
Speed, Keith


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Stainton, Keith


Crouch, David
Lane, David
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Crowder, F. P.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Stodart, Anthony


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Currie, G. B. H.
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'n C'dfield)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Tapsell, Peter


Dance, James
Longden, Gilbert
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
MacArthur, Ian
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Doughty, Charles
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Temple, John M.


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Drayson, G. B.
McMaster, Stanley
Tilney, John


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Eden, Sir John
McNair-Wilson, Michael
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Emery, Peter
Maddan, Martin
Waddington, David


Errington, Sir Eric
Maginnis, John E.
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Eyre, Reginald
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Farr, John
Marten, Neil
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Fisher, Nigel
Maude, Angus
Walters, Dennis


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mawby, Ray
Ward, Dame Irene


Fortescue, Tim
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Weatherill, Bernard


Foster, Sir John
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Gibson-Watt, David
Miscampbell, Norman
Wiggin, A. W.


Cilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Monro, Hector
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Glover, Sir Douglas
Montgomery, Fergus
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Glyn, Sir Richard
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Woodnutt, Mark


Goodhart, Philip
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Wright, Esmond


Goodhew, Victor
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Wylie, N. R.


Gower, Raymond
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Younger, Hn. George


Grant, Anthony
Murton, Oscar



Grant-Ferris, R.
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Grieve, Percy
Neave, Airey
Mr. R. W. Elliott and


Gurden, Harold
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Mr. Jasper More.


Hall, John (Wycombe)






NOES


Abse, Leo
Ashley, Jack
Barnett, Joel


Albu, Austen
Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Baxter, William


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood


Alldritt, Walter
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Bidwell, Sydney


Anderson, Donald
Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Binns, John


Archer, Peter
Bagier, Cordon A. T.
Bishop, E. S.







Blackburn, F.
Harman, William
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Booth, Albert
Haseldine, Norman
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Boston, Terence
Hattersley, Roy
Moyle, Roland


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Hazell, Bert
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Boyden, James
Henig, Stanley
Neal, Harold


Bradley, Tom
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Newens, Stan


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hilton, W. S.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip


Brooks, Edwin
Hooley, Frank
Norwood, Christopher


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Horner, John
Oakes, Gordon


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Ogden, Eric


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
O'Malley, Brian


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Oram, Albert E.


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hoy, James
Orbach, Maurice


Buchan, Norman
Huckfield, Leslie
Orme, Stanley


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Oswald, Thomas


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hynd, John
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Cant, R. B.
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Paget, R. T.


Carmichael, Neil
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Park, Trevor


Concannon, J. D.
Janner, Sir Barnett
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Conlan, Bernard
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Pavitt, Laurence


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Crawshaw, Richard
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Cronin, John
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pentland, Norman


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham. S.)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Judd, Frank
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Kelley, Richard
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Kenyon, Clifford
Probert, Arthur


Davies, Dr, Ernest (Stretford)
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Randall, Harry


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Rankin, John


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lawson, George
Rees, Merlyn


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Leadbitter, Ted
Richard, Ivor


Delargy, Hugh
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dell, Edmund
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy


Dempsey, James
Lee, John (Reading)
Roberts, Gwliym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Dewar, Donald
Lestor, Miss Joan
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)


Dickens, James
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Dobson, Ray
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Roebuck, Roy


Doig, Peter
Lipton, Marcus
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Dunn, James A.
Lomas, Kenneth
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Dunnett, Jack
Loughlin, Charles
Ryan, John


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Luard, Evan
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Sheldon, Robert


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Ellis, John
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


English, Michael
McBride, Neil
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Ennals, David
McCann, John
Silverman, Julius


Ensor, David
MacColl, James
Skeffington, Arthur


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
MacDermot, Niall
Slater, Joseph


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Macdonald, A. H.
Small, William


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
McGuire, Michael
Snow, Julian


Faulds, Andrew
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Spriggs, Leslie


Fernyhough, E.
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir Eric (Islington, E.)
Mackie, John
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mackintosh, John P.
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Foley, Maurice
McNamara, J. Kevin
Taverne, Dick


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Ford, Ben
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Forrester, John
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Thornton, Ernest


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Tinn, James


Gardner, Tony
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Tomney, Frank


Garrett, W. E.
Manuel, Archie
Tuck, Raphael


Ginsburg, David
Mapp, Charles
Urwin, T. W.


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Marks, Kenneth
Varley, Eric G.


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Marquand, David
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Gregory, Arnold
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Wallace, George


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mayhew, Christopher
Watkins, David (Consett)


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mellish, Rt Hn. Robert
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Mendelson, John
Weitzman, David


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mikardo, Ian
Wellbeloved, James


Gunter, Rt. Hn, R. J.
Millan, Bruce
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Whitaker, Ben


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Whitlock, William


Hamling, William
Moonman, Eric
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick







Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Wilton, William (Coventry, S.)



Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
Winnick, David
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and


Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Woof, Robert
Mr. Joseph Harper.


Willis, Rt. Hn. George
Wyatt, Woodrow

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Motions relating to Ways and Means may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Mellish.]

TELEVISION PROGRAMME CONTRACTORS (ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS)

10.14 p.m.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. John Stonehouse): I beg to move
That the Television Act 1964 (Additional Payments) Order 1969, a draft of which was laid before this House on 21st April, be approved.
I understand that the Opposition are concerned about this draft Order, but I believe that it can be attacked only on one of two grounds—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I want to hear what the Minister is saying.

Mr. Stonehouse: I want to deal with these two grounds and to show how illogical an attack on the draft Order would be. First, it is possible that some hon. Members may deploy an argument against the principle involved in the payments which the I.T.V. companies are expected to make. This would not gain much support in the House, as it is a matter of common agreement, certainly between the two Front Benches, that it is appropriate that the programme companies should pay a rental charge for a facility made available to them by the community.
The House will remember the history of this. When commercial T.V. began the profits made were not very great, but they grew to astronomical proportions. The then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd), who I am glad to see is present, introduced in his 1961 Budget a television advertisement duty at a flat rate of 11 per cent. This was to correct the situation in which the T.V. companies were enjoying returns on their investment out of all proportion.
In the 1963 Act, a new system of dealing with the problem was introduced.

It provided for rental payments by the programme contractors to the I.T.A. under two separate heads. The first was concerned with the payment to meet the Authority's costs in discharging its statutory duties, the duty of providing and operating a network of transmitters and the duty of supervising and controlling programme contractors. We are not concerned with that charge tonight. We are concerned with the second charge, the additional payment to be made by the authority into the Consolidated Fund and designed to secure for the community a fair return from a publicly-available facility.
It was as a result of that Act that the flat-rate duty was abolished and the levy reckoned by reference to percentages of contractors' annual advertising receipts, with provision for a varying scale to take into account the different financial positions of the various groups of contractors. Powers to vary the rates were given in what is now Section 13(6) of the consolidating Act of 1964 and I am using that Act to lay the Order before the House.
Hon. Members who now sit on the other side of the House supported the principle of this rental charge. Therefore, it ill-becomes them—if any of them should try to do so tonight—to attack the principle of this charge. I believe it is commonly accepted that it is reasonable for the programme companies to pay this rental charge.

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, we cannot debate the parent Act and the principle involved. Certain variations are being made and those are what we can debate tonight.

Mr. Stonehouse: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker, and I am merely identifying the fact that the principle is generally accepted on both sides—the principle that it is not in the nature of a tax but a rental payment for a facility that is provided by the community.
Where there may be some disagreement is about the amount of the rental payment which may be asked from the programme companies. Some hon. Members may be concerned about the rate that is being charged and the increase they are being asked to approve


tonight. I will, therefore, explain how it was that we came to bring this suggeston forward.
In his Budget speech, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced an increase of £3 million a year. This was arrived at after very close discussions that had been going on for two years between my officials in the Post Office and officials of the I.T.A. Those discussions began in the summer of 1967 and the main object was to find out the return on the investment made by the programme contractors. The main result of the discussions was the fact that the T.V. companies as a whole were making a return of well over 40 per cent. on their investment.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that, as a result of those investigations, it would have been the intention to increase this levy, apart from the need expressed in the Budget speech by the Chancellor? Is he saying, in other words, that the increase is based on the merits of the investigations and that it has nothing to do with the stringency outlined by the Chancellor?

Mr. Stonehouse: Yes, Sir. It was on the basis that the programme contractors were expected, when the original imposition was made—I referred to this at the outset of my speech—to pay a reasonable rental charge. It was considered, as a result of the discussions, that the £3 million increase was reasonable to expect in all the circumstances.
It was expected that the profits of the programme contractors would decrease as colour programmes were introduced and the Authority was introducing a fifth major contractor this year, and this, it was expected, would have some effect as well. On the other hand, the industry has remained profitable. It has made a very good return. As the House knows, the Chancellor decided to introduce the increase of £3 million, which was considered a reasonable increase in the light of all the circumstances.
On the estimates of the I.T.A., the effect of this increase, if applied in full to the current contract year—that is the year ending 29th July, 1969—would still have left the companies with profits of

about £9 million before tax, which is a return of just under 20 pet cent. before tax, which compares favourably with a return of 15 per cent. before tax allowed on State contracts. In other words, on advertising revenue running at rather over £8 million a month, we decided that the contractors could afford to pay to the community an extra rental payment of £¼ million in addition to the rental payment of rather over £2 million which, in any event, they would have paid each month.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Does the figure of 20 per cent. apply equally to the small and medium sized companies as well?

Mr. Stonehouse: No, that is the overall figure. It was therefore considered appropriate that we should increase the amount as I have described. We had to decide how to distribute the additional requirements as equitably as possible among the different companies in proportion to the amount of investment they had made. The new scale incorporated in this Order was arrived at jointly after discussions with the Authority and accepted by it as the fairest distribution to take account of the question of the smaller contracors.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Can the right hon. Gentleman say, in assessing the amount to be levied and having given the factor of 20 per cent. before tax or roughly 10 per cent. after tax, how much in total was allowed for building up reserves to spend on capital equipment for the introduction of colour later this year?

Mr. Stonehouse: It varies for various contractors. It would be unfair to them to give a particular figure at this time, but assessments made by my officials and officials of the Authority allowed for a substantial amount to be built up by the individual contractors concerned.
I have had an opportunity of discussing with the managing directors of the programme contractors the effect of this increase. They asked to see me informally some time ago. They have explained to me how their position is affected. The House may be interested to know the result of those discussions. They explained that they have no quarrel with the I.T.A. Their objection to the increase is that it is an over-estimate of


the rate of profits they are due to make in this and subsequent financial years. If we look at the actual results in the last few years, we find they are very near indeed to what was estimated by my officials.
In the three years ending 1967–68, profits had been around £19 million, giving a return, as the Chancellor said in his speech, of around or over 40 per cent. In 1968–69, however, despite an estimated increase of £5 million in net advertising receipts after levy and a decrease of over £1½ million in the I.T.A. rentals under the first head—that is the charges they have to meet—the programme contractors expected profits to fall to £12 million, a turn round of £13 million. They did not expect that the introduction of colour would bring in an immediate increase in income, but a large number of colour programmes of good quality would be required.
They expected that £20 million worth of equipment would be required for this and, if B.B.C. experience was any guide, the cost of major productions was likely to increase by 20 per cent. Thus, they estimated that their costs would increase by £4 million or £5 million a year. This fact, linked with the £3 million increase which this draft Order will give authority for us to collect, would reduce profits to £5 million in 1969–70, a quarter of the amount obtaining before the present contract year.
The companies were determined to allow no decline in the quality of their programmes. I was very glad to hear that from them, but they said that in time the quality was bound to suffer if the economic viability of independent television remained doubtful. In the long run the quality of the industry would contract if it could not afford to experiment. There was a danger, especially, that regional companies would no longer be able to afford high quality programmes of marginal appeal or at marginal times of day. They also made the point that some companies might not be able to take advantage of export potential in producing programmes.
I was very interested in what the directors had to say and was delighted to note the public-spirited approach that they took to their responsibilities. Their assessment of the effect of the increase

bore out what the Authority had told me during my consultations with the Authority before the decision announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The estimate of the effect of the increase in 1969–70 was not available during that consultation, although the Authority tells me that it supports it. However, this is no more than an estimate; and, although I recognise the force of independent T.V.'s convictions about its financial future, I doubt whether these fears will be fully realised in the event. It does not follow necessarily that they will. The I.T.A. was able to maintain programme companies after the first rental payment was made in 1964, despite the fact that the increase took an extra share of its income—a much greater share than the increase which I am asking the House to approve tonight. Whatever its future prospects the return of over 40 per cent. which independent T.V. enjoyed in the three years ending in July, 1968, has been its to keep. We are not asking it to pay it back at this stage. The B.B.C. has been required to make substantial economies in recent years.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: The Postmaster-General is aware, though, that a number of the I.T.A. companies have changed in these years and some of the new ones have not had this great bonanza.

Mr. Stonehouse: I accept that and agree that the new ones are not in the same position as those which have enjoyed this high return on investment in past years.
It is important to remember that the B.B.C. has been able to make economies and it may be that the I.T.A. will be able to make economies as well. I give an undertaking to the House that we will keep the position under review and, if the contractors' worst fears as expressed to me are realised, we shall be ready to consider making a further Order reducing the impact of this charge. This pledge cuts both ways. If things turn out better for the companies than we have foreseen, we would also have to consider whether it should be increased.
I hope that the House agrees that in the light of all the circumstances this is a reasonable increase to impose during this particular year. I have given an undertaking that the Government will


consider the effect on the programme companies during the next year and, if the worst results that are expected by some of the companies concerned, are realised we will again re-consider the position. I do not think we could be fairer than that. I therefore ask the House to approve the Order.

10.34 p.m.

Mr. Paul Bryan: The awkward and embarrassed tone of the speech of the Postmaster-General shows that he recognised that he is on very weak ground. We have some sympathy with him, because this ground is not ground of his own choosing. It is ground chosen by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—or rather, not quite chosen, but ground on to which the Chancellor has blundered. In increasing this levy by this amount, the Chancellor was clearly blinded by ignorance. He was under the impression that nothing had happened to the television companies over the last two or three years.
The Postmaster-General, in trying to anticipate our opposition to the Order, first wondered whether we would oppose it on grounds of principle. This was unlikely, as we invented the levy. I accept the arguments for the levy which the right hon. Gentleman put forward, but I do not think that anyone can say that the Conservative Government ever imposed the levy on such a scale that it led to a lowering of programme standards.
The increase, in present circumstances, is one more instance of Government policy leading towards a depression of broadcasting standards. That is the reason why I shall advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the Order tonight. Another instance, which I shall not enlarge on, is highlighted by the argument going on in the B.B.C. Once again, in our view, it looks as though—I put it like that because it is all rumour and newspaper reports at the moment—Government policy will lead towards a reduction in B.B.C. radio standards.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot debate that tonight.

Mr. Bryan: Yes, Mr. Speaker; I was about to leave that point.
This extra levy, when examined against the background of the figures upon which it ought to have been based, gives one the picture of a punch-drunk Chancellor looking round for more millions for his Budget, shopping around, as it were, and saying, "What next?", and some junior civil servant saying, "It is some time since we bashed the I.T.V. What about that?". The figure of 40 per cent. quoted in this context is hopelessly wrong. The right hon. Gentleman was therefore unconscious that this was a uniquely stupid time to raise the levy.
The timing is what matters most here. It is the timing which makes certain that the levy will lead to cuts in programme standards. I presume that the 40 per cent. talked about in the Budget speech applied to periods before the new franchise of 1967, but the changes created by that new franchise are bound to transform these financial results; they are bound to make all the Chancellor's premises completely irrelevant.
What has happened? How big are the changes? First, each major company has new areas and/or new periods of the week in which to broadcast. Second, the Big Four have become the Big Five, with the introduction of Yorkshire, which in turn transforms the financial background. Third, Rediffusion and A.B.C. have amalgamated to form Thames, another great change. Then there are three entirely new companies. How is one to guess what their financial position is? Yorkshire, in particular, is saddled with initial expenses without taking over any of the assets of a previous company, so it is utterly unpredictable. Whatever figures of profitability the Chancellor based his so-called judgment can have no relation to the profit figure from which the new levy will be subtracted.
To make the Chancellor's decision even more irresponsible, it appears that the Postmaster-General forgot to tell him about colour. As the right hon. Gentleman said just now, the B.B.C. estimates about 20 per cent. extra costs on colour programmes, and, as he said also, the capital equipment already invested in by the independent television companies amounts to about £20 million. What he did not say, though this is very relevant to the question of profit figures, is that


the depreciation rate on this sort of equipment is bound to be high because of its heavy element of obsolescence. At the same time, in independent television there is no extra return for at least the first few years for putting out colour television programmes, whereas the B.B.C. has more licence income the more sets that are bought.
The outcome of all these developments is as follows. In contrast to the 1967–68 figure, which was £19 million, as the Postmaster-General said, the forecast for 1968–69 is £12 million, and, taking away the £3 million, in a full year one comes to £9 million. There the Postmaster-General gave a return of 20 per cent. In another place, his opposite number did not know the figure at first, but someone handed him a note which revealed a figure of 18 per cent. So apparently 18 per cent. is correct.
Colour television will in future have running expenses of £4 to £5 million reducing the profit figure to about £5 million. But he was careful not to reveal what that equalled in terms of percentage return. The percentage return on that figure is something below 10 per cent.
Then he quoted the figure of 15 per cent. for ordinary contracts with the Government, and he said how lucky television was to have a bigger figure than that. But we are discussing a risk industry. If anyone doubts that, he has only to see what happened after the famous Hill reshuffle. Can anyone think of another industry where a business is suddenly brought to an end by an overnight decision of some committee or authority? Therefore, when we talk about percentage returns, we have to do it in the light of the industry under consideration. But we are now discussing profits of less than 10 per cent. in an industry which obviously is about as risky as one could find.

Mr. J. T. Price: Since the hon. Gentleman has referred to a risk industry—and I accept that at once—is not he forgetting that gold and diamond mines also are risk industries, and the rewards expected in the early years are very high because of that? One of the principal operators in independent television has immortalised himself by going on record as saying that the grant-

ing of a franchise to his company was equivalent to a licence to print money. Let us look at the historical facts.

Mr. Bryan: I will return to that point in a moment, to show to what extent the hon. Gentleman is out of date.
I was saying that this is a risk industry, and it is a risk industry in one more desirable way. Every new programme series is a big risk, and rightly so. If one puts on a series production involving 26 episodes costing £60,000 apiece, that comes to a total of £1½ million or so. The loss of that is equal to the profit margin of A.T.V. for a year. These are very big risks.
At this early stage, however, it is impossible to pick out instances to show that the levy has had this effect or that on a given company. But anyone who knows the industry has not the slightest doubt that the small companies will soon apply to the I.T.A. for permission to originate less production. That is the way in which they will economise. It is significant that already Yorkshire and Anglia are trying to get together in order to economise. It is significant that Ulster has cancelled its order for a new television studio costing £1½ million.
The Financial Times, which can be regarded as a factual paper, quotes the Grampian results, showing that before any of this happened its programme costs had gone up 25 to 30 per cent. in the last 2½ years. There is a company with profits one-third less than last year which is paying another £60,000 in levy.
As an hon. Member representing a Yorkshire constituency, I would like to say a great deal about Yorkshire Television. The company has not been going a year yet. It has no results. Everything points to it making no profits, either. It has been plagued by a strike, and by its mast falling down. Despite this, the company is required to pay £2 million levy.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: My hon. Friend is talking as if this is merely extra levy on profits, but the levy has to be paid whether or not a company makes profits.

Mr. Bryan: I agree with my hon. Friend. If we put on a £3 million levy, it is £3 million less profit at the end of the day.

Mr. R. F. H. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman mentioned Yorkshire T.V., and I am sure that he knows a lot about it. It would be interesting if he gave us a figure so far for the advertising receipts. It is upon these that the levy rests. Are they £500,000 or less when there is no levy paid?

Mr. Bryan: I cannot say. What matters to a company at the end of the day are the final profit results. What I am trying to say is that it looks like making no profit. One serious point I want to put to the Postmaster-General is, as we have agreed in principle on the levy, has he given any thought to the possibility, in the long term, of this levy being imposed in some different way, which would not automatically affect programme quality? In another place Lord Willis suggested a levy which took account of the amount directly spent on programmes by the various companies. He suggested that the levy might be geared to a system by which its effect on a company does not descend directly on the programmes.
Can the Postmaster-General pronounce on the future policy about the annual raid on the I.T.A. reserves? This started in 1961. In the four years of Tory rule something like £1,380,000 was taken from the I.T.A. reserves. This did not cripple activities, but in the last three years that sum has risen to £5 million. This arbitrary, unforeseeable, unguessable reduction of reserves in any sort of investing organisation makes an investment policy almost impossible.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot discuss future Orders on this Order.

Mr. Bryan: Some hon. Members will no doubt talk about the "licence to print money", but the facts I have produced mean that that sentence is out of date. Both the B.B.C. and the I.T.V. are in real financial trouble. Both will lower standards of programmes unless this Government does something to stop this happening.

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I remind the House that this debate can last only one and a half hours. Many hon. Members wish to speak. Reasonably brief speeches will help.

10.49 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: The hon. Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan) appeared to be a little embarrassed by the intervention of his hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) when he pointed out that this levy is imposed upon the gross receipts of the companies, not upon their profits. The reason why the hon. Member was embarrassed was because this is determined by the Act for which his party was responsible. My right hon. Friend, whether he wants to or not, is bound to follow the pattern set out in the 1964 Act, unless he decided to bring forward fresh legislation. If this is to be in the terms of an Order, it must follow the present pattern.

Mr. Bryan: Has the hon. Gentleman, like his right hon. Friend, failed to anticipate what I would say in my speech?

Mr. Jenkins: I cannot say what the Postmaster-General anticipated. My point is that the Order stems from the 1964 Act, introduced by the previous Administration. In these circumstances, unless the Postmaster-General brings fresh legislation before the House to rewrite the 1964 Act, he can only bring forward the Order in this form. I believe, with the hon. Member for Peterborough, that it is the wrong form.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member can believe what he likes but can discuss only the form that is before us tonight.

Mr. Jenkins: Indeed, I am discussing this form, but I am saying that it is unfortunate that it has to be this form and that it can be only this form because of the 1964 Act.
I sympathise with my right hon. Friend in as much as he is unable to impose the levy at the point at which it ought to be imposed, which is, of course, the profits of the companies and not the gross revenues. It is unfortunate. There is no reason at all why the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he insists on having £3 million, should not have it from profits. I think it quite wrong that this £3 million should disappear into the Treasury. It is television money which ought to remain in television and ought to be redistributed in television and not go to the Treasury at all. There is no reason why the money should not be


exacted, because the programme companies can afford to pay it, but they can afford it better from profits rather than from gross revenues. So I think it rather unfortunate that my right hon. Friend is committed to an Order which stems from the 1964 Act.
It is possibly a salutary reflection that, in between the 1954 and 1964 Acts, there was the Report of the Pilkington Committee, and that the previous Administration paid no account—

Mr. Speaker: Order. A parent Act exists. Nothing can wish it away. Tonight we are discussing only the Order.

Mr. Jenkins: Indeed, I entirely accept your view, Mr. Speaker. I was saying only in passing that it is perhaps unfortunate that the previous Administration paid no account to the recommendation of the Pilkington Committee that advertising revenue itself should go to the Independent Television Authority and not the programme companies. Having said that I will stray no further, or else I shall indeed be out of order, and will return to the Order itself.
I have some sympathy with the point of view which has been put forward, that the proposals made by my right hon. Friend are likely to bear hardly on the smaller programme companies, and I therefore welcome the assurance which my right hon. Friend gave that he would keep under review meticulously the operation of the application of these proposals, so as to see whether they do have the effect which hon. Members opposite have suggested that they will have, and I am rather afraid that they will have.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Is my hon. Friend not aware of the fact that the appointments to the office of Postmaster-General change almost every two or three months? While my right hon. Friend gave that pledge, the odds are 1,000 to one that he will not be there to honour it.

Mr. Jenkins: This may indeed be true, but it is also worthy of note that the proposal to introduce this increase in the levy was made not by the Postmaster-General but by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, so it rather seems that, whoever gets the office of Postmaster-

General, it is the Chancellor who has the say whether the levy is to be exacted or not.
Nevertheless, I feel that these proposals cannot be criticised in themselves. If one accepts, and I think one does accept, that it is possible for commercial television to find another £3 million, what one can criticise is the manner in which it is being found. I think it wrong, but it cannot be otherwise under the present Act. The other thing one can criticise is the destination of the money. It ought not to go into the pockets of the Treasury. It ought to be redistributed in the television industry so as to improve programme content. That is what ought to happen. Within the terms of the Order, my right hon. Friend has done what he has been put in handcuffs by the previous Administration to do.
I recommend to my hon. Friend that, having carried the Order, as he will, he must open his mind to the introduction of fresh legislation to redesign the pattern of the television programmes of the I.T.A. and the B.B.C. If he does that, he will deserve the vote which he will undoubtedly get upon the Order.

10.55 p.m.

Mr. John Pardoe: In almost any television debate one should start by saying that one has no interest to declare, because it is assumed that almost everyone has an interest. I have experience to declare, but no interest.
I am opposed to the Order for some of the reasons that have already been given. The Order has been introduced in the mistaken belief that television is still the golden goose that it was when the remark of the Chairman of Scottish Television quoted earlier this evening was made, and that was a different age.
Remarks have been made about astronomical profits. It is perfectly true, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that profits were running at the rate of about 40 per cent. on capital, but they will not go on doing so. Television has oozed the good life at us, but what it portrays on the screen is not happening now in the balance sheets.
It is obvious that all Governments have got the contracts with the television companies wrong. When it was found that the contracts were a licence to print


money the contracts were changed, and now the Government are going too far the other way.
The industry regards the £3 million as a levy on advertising and not on profits, and I do not necessarily disagree with that. I do not like levies on profits. Profits in an imperfect capitalist world are an indication of the efficiency with which a company is run. But whereas profits were running at 40 per cent. on capital, in the year ending 31st July, 1969, it is likely that the profits will be about 20 per cent. on capital. Does the Postmaster-General consider this to be an unreasonable return?
In the light of the present interest rates, 20 per cent. on capital is not an unreasonable level of profits in an industrial enterprise, and I would not wish to be associated with a company that was running at a very much lower level than that. Profits fell from £19 million in 1967–68 to about £12 million in 1968–69, and the new levy will reduce this to £9 million.
The introduction of colour is of extreme importance in these calculations. With the increased costs of about 20 per cent. for producing colour programmes, it looks as though the total profits for all the television companies in the first year of full colour transmission over the board will be about £4 million, and that is below a 10 per cent. return on capital, which is a ridiculous return for any enterprise.
I want to deal briefly with the effect on smaller companies with which I have had close personal associations—not now but in the past.
The levy will mean that Westward Television will pay another £75,000 a year. The capital cost to Westward of equipping for colour is about £500,000, and £75,000 is a substantial sum of money in comparison with its profits.
For Border Television, which is one of the two smallest companies, the levy will amount to £24,000 in a full year, which, since it is a close company, is substantially more than the profits available in the existing financial year for ploughing into colour. I am not sure where the money will come from. I have grave doubts whether it will come from the market in view of the terms of the

contract. It is estimated that £167,000 will have to be spent between now and September, 1971, in equipping for colour.
So far as Scottish Television is concerned, one has to remember that this is one of the larger regional companies and, in spite of the comment made earlier about a remark of the Chairman of Scottish Television, Lord Thomson, that an independent licence is the same as having permission to print one's own money, we have to think of the facts. Yes, Lord Thomson may have done well out of it, but when he went in there were no other regional companies. Nobody else wanted to get in on the act at that time, but what is happening now is hitting these regional companies pretty hard.

Mr. Robert Cooke: The levy paid by these small but very effective companies will be almost doubled in the first year by this new formula.

Mr. Pardoe: Yes, I agree, and to what extent is anyone's estimate. What I say will happen as a result of this levy is that there will be no great increase in advertising for either black and white or colour programmes. There will be no great increase in audience numbers and, so long as the credit squeeze lasts, I cannot see colour television catching on. I think the House would do well to ponder on the remarks of the new Director-General of the B.B.C., which were given some publicity the other day, that the outlook for colour sets is not very good.
What will happen is that quality will go by the board. Quality is not linked with the size of audiences, and it will be very much easier for a company like Westward to buy cheap American trash rather than go to the expense of putting on good local programmes such it has been doing. I do not know how many hon. Members recall any of the Westward programmes, but some have been very good indeed. The fact is that while this American trash is cheaper and easier to produce audiences will watch it; audiences will stay up watching it, and so income may well stay up, but let us give consideration to what effect this levy will have on the arts. Let us think, for example, about the money which


these companies have for paying orchestras and so on. Perhaps the Postmaster-General would care to discuss that matter with his right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Education and Science.
It is wrong to change contracts in midstream. Of course, the Postmaster-General can use the technical argument that the contract is with the I.T.A., but in practice he knows very well that the contract is between us and the Government, and if we can change the terms of the contract then we may. Presumably it is quite all right for London Weekend to have gone back on their promises as they have. Perhaps the Postmaster-General does not mind if everybody tears up their contracts.
Where I disagreed most with him was when he said the levy might be lower if things turned out to be so bad as is forecast; but he also said it might be higher, and that is absolutely monstrous. What enterprise will want to get involved in anything when it knows that if it succeeds, the Government will jump on its back and take even more from it?

11.5 p.m.

Mr. Donald Dewar: I have no intention of getting involved in a technical and, I suspect, often devious argument about what the return on capital in the television industry is or ought to be. Equally, I have no intention of arguing that £29 million is necessarily on unreasonable burden to place on the industry. I am merely interested in whether that burden is distributed in the wisest possible fashion. The question that I am raising concerns the status and the position of the smaller companies.
I understand, and it is reasonable to fear, that these small companies may be hit and hit hardest by the changes in the scale which the Postmaster-General is seeking to introduce. These companies are certainly very far removed from the glittering vision of the show business world which is common in popular imagination. Certainly their franchise has no connection with the notorious "licence to print money" of yesteryear.
Some of us—and I am not ashamed about it—had doubts from the beginning about the concept of commercial television. We felt, and still feel, that there is a tendency to sacrifice standards in the

chase for a mass audience. In my mind, there is no doubt that that definition can be blurred by the search for acceptability. The programme which is often widely screened is the programme which will be most widely tolerated and that is not necessarily the best.
If there is an argument for commercial television, it is to be found in the small company which identifies itself with a homogeneous and well defined region, which serves its needs and encourages its aspirations.
There are a number of these I know throughout Britain. In my area there is Grampian Television. One hon. Member has also mentioned Scottish Television, which has a worse reputation than it deserves. It seems to me that such companies have cause for concern.
Grampian, about which the facts and figures are for me most readily available and have indeed been supplied to local Members of Parliament, has a total possible viewing audience of about one million, of which I understand that 43 per cent. falls into an overlap area. Grampian's profit in the last financial year was less than in 1966, and one-third down on the previous year. It stands at £202,000, which is not a princely sum and now they must find about another £56,000. In the past Grampian paid nothing, but, with the abolition of the free slice, it will have to find a sizeable amount of cash at a time when there are special demands and pressures upon the smaller companies.
The introduction of colour is a kind of two-way squeeze. It will put up the cost to the advertiser and encourage him to leave out the peripheral stations and go to the big catchment areas. It will also raise the capital investment necessary over the next few years for these companies.
Grampian's profits indeed in the first four months of this year are lower in each case than in the first four months of the previous year, and costs are going up.
The small companies—Grampian, Border and Ulster—which have never paid before, suddenly will have to pay. It seems that this has considerable implications for the future shape of commercial television in this country. I am not sure that this is right. After all, these companies do not necessarily lack profitability


because they are inefficient, but because the public monopoly given to them is limited and they cannot operate or bring to bear their expertise in the widest possible market. They have a public privilege, a monopoly, but similarly they have that limitation built in with the terms under which they exist.
In one sense at least the new levy, or the extension of the old levy, is regressive in effect. Taking a company earning £1½ million, it will have to produce for the Exchequer an additional £70,000 which, if my calculations are right, is marginally under 5 per cent. of its advertising revenue. But, taking one of the big boys whose advertising revenue runs at £10 million, it has to find another £170,000. That is a lot of money, but, as a proportion of revenue, it is about 1·7 per cent. So, in percentage terms, in terms of the size of the organisations with which we are dealing, the smaller the company the more it will be hit.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman's argument further. Is he aware that it has been caculated that the four smallest companies will be contributing about 8 per cent. of the additional £3 million levy, while their total share of I.T.V. revenue is only about 5 per cent., so it appears that it bears particularly hard on them?

Mr. Dewar: The hon. Gentleman will doubtless accept that my mental arithmetic is not that good. However, I am sure that his figures have been carefully calculated by somebody somewhere, and I accept that it is so.
I should have preferred a tax on profits, rather than a tax on revenue. After all, what we fear is people making quick and easy profits out of a public monopoly. The obvious and correct way to deal with that is to tax the profits made, but I realise that is a more sweeping change than could be brought in under the circumstances.
I fear that we shall force the small companies, not to go out of existence, that is perhaps over-dramatising the situation, but to cut back on their own productions and programmes. It will be a pity it they do that because their programme schedules will be more anonymous and drab as a result and a lot of

the vitality and liveliness will go out of independent television as we know it now. As the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) said, the programmes will be trash. Perhaps that is putting it a little high, but certainly we shall get imported pot boilers which, at the end of the day, are easier and cheaper for the companies concerned. This cannot be a good thing.
These arguments may not be immediately relevant to any Chancellor of the Exchequer in his professional capacity, because he must always be routing round for added revenue, but I hope that they will be considered very seriously by the Postmaster-General. If independent television is to have any real role and not to lose all vitality it must operate in terms of local stations to serve local needs. I fear that that will be the harder to discharge adequately if this particular fiscal policy is introduced.

11.12 p.m.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: The muted way in which the Postmaster-General moved the Order made it pretty clear to me that the Post Office is not in full agreement with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in doing this. The Post Office is the sponsoring Department for television. It has a greater knowledge of what goes on, and the potential and the dangers, than any other Government Department, and if I read the situation aright—and this can never be confirmed—the Post Office, through the mouth of the right hon. Gentleman, is demeaned at having to do the job. The right hon. Gentleman's speech shows that his heart is not in this and that the Chancellor does not have his wholehearted support.

Mr. Stonehouse: I take this opportunity of strenuously denying the point made by the hon. Gentleman.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: The right hon. Gentleman could say nothing different. This is a joint responsibility. The right hon. Gentleman could not admit the truth of what I have said. We have on other occasions heard the right hon. Gentleman speak about something in which he believes, and we have studied his demeanour tonight. We can judge the demeanour of the witness, and that plays as big a part as the words and the evidence he gives.
The right hon. Gentleman said that we could not oppose this in principle because of the terms of the 1964 Act. Some of us can oppose it in principle, because when the Bill was going through the House some of us pointed out the dangers of basing any level on advertising receipts and not on profits. It would have been reasonable to base the levy on profits. That would not have done a great deal of harm.
If the Government are trying to suggest that it was my right hon. and hon. Friends who were solely responsible for making what I considered to be a mistake, perhaps I might remind the House that the Bill was passed with the vociferous and wholehearted support of the right hon. Gentleman's friends who supported the then Chancellor in bringing this—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If a mistake was made, or not made, it is over now. The Act is an Act. We are debating the Order.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: What I was saying was relevant to the extent that the right hon. Gentleman said that we could not oppose this in principle. The principle about which he spoke was the basis on which he had to operate, and I am saying in answer to the right hon. Gentleman's claim that some of us are in a position to oppose it in principle, and I for one do.
I think that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar) gave us a clear insight into what is really behind this, because once again commercial television is being clobbered. It is being singled out for this treatment.

Mr. Frank Tommy: The point is well made. There would be no profits for the shareholders to share, and we feel that they have been clobbered. My union has a £300,000 investment in Yorkshire Television, and we will not get any profits.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman has found a delightful way of declaring an interest.
We must go back a little in history. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar) said that there was still an objection to commercial television. There was a sudden change in 1964 in the

official policy of the then Labour Opposition. They had written it into their manifesto that they would end commercial television—

Mr. Speaker: This may be nostalgic, but it is out of order in this debate.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Except that it reflects the mood of the people bringing in the Order, Mr. Speaker. That mood is the reason why we have to debate this at all.
The levy will come to £29 million—a third of the total advertising income of the programme companies, so they will be left with two-thirds to spend on their programmes. It must be remembered that they do not only pay the levy—like other companies, they also pay 45 per cent. Corporation Tax on their profits. The individuals receiving their dividends must also pay tax, so the contribution by commercial televison is massive, at a time when we want the most up to date and virile television system.
Television has a great part to play in our balance of payments over the next 20 years—giving us a return perhaps higher than we have earned from motor cars. The potential of the entertainment industry, and especially television, is so great that we are being stupid if we do not take advantage of the fact that we have one of the best bases for supplying that world need. For the sake of £3 million, this will have a disastrous effect on the smaller companies, and will interfere with the regional dialects and feelings which, in our debates on the 1964 Act, we said we wanted represented.
In addition to the quality of the programmes which we see ourselves, we will injure one of our greatest export potentials. We could have become to television what Los Angeles was to the film world a few years ago. When we could have been moving fast in producing some of the best colour programmes and sets, we are putting this extra charge on the industry which will make it well-nigh impossible for it even to keep level in the race with the Germans and the Japanese and the others who recognise the great world potential here.
It is that antipathy towards commercial television which has caused the Chancellor to do this. It cannot be the


£3 million. If he had recognised this industry's great potential, he would not have done this.
The Postmaster-General suggested that the chairmen of the programme companies did not have much objection to this. He quoted their figures, but in such a way as to make it appear that there was no objection to what will be a disastrous blow against their chances of developing along lines which will be in the best interests of this country.
I wanted to reinforce the general proposition—that the danger which will flow from this is much greater than that of robbing the Chancellor of £3 million at a time when we know that he is in dire need of every pound he can get. I believe that this will injure, at a vital time, one of our greatest export potentials, and that we shall regret it very much.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would remind the House that many hon. Members still wish to speak.

11.20 p.m.

Mr. Edward Lyons: In assuring you, Mr. Speaker, that I shall be extremely brief, I shall confine my remarks to Yorkshire, an area about which no backbencher has so far spoken.
Yorkshire Television was estimating that there would be a profit of about £145,000 in the year ending in May. This additional levy will cost Yorkshire £182,000, which means Yorkshire Television facing a loss. When, in addition, one bears in mind the extra charges which will result from increased S.E.T. later in the year, the prospect for this part of the country, like those covered by other small T.V. companies, is sad.
Yorkshire Television was originally designed to replace Granada which, it was considered, was not sufficiently Yorkshire-orientated because it was based at Manchester. It is sad to think that Yorkshire Television should be forced to negotiate with Anglia Television when the latter has, as far as I know, nothing in common with Yorkshire. If such an association is to take place, simply to achieve economies, why was Yorkshire Television established? If it was not designed to bring a Yorkshire regional flavour into programmes, Granada should

have been allowed to continue. What was the purpose of the original exercise?
What action does my right hon. Friend propose to take to ensure that the blows of this increased turn-over tax, which is what it is, do not prevent the regional television stations from retaining their regional flavour? Many hon. Members have explained why independent television should succeed. We in Yorkshire do not want lots of imported American violent serials and series. We can well do without them. We have enough of them already.
We want television of a high quality. Yorkshire Television has put a lot of money into new equipment and studios in the area. We want more plays produced in Yorkshire studios with a regional character. This unfortunate turn-over tax will very likely result in economies being made in good quality productions.

11.22 p.m.

Mr. Henry Clark: I, too, will be brief. In this matter, as in so many others, the Postmaster-General is no more than a creature of the Treasury. However, we are entitled to a straight answer from him to a simple question; why, in devising this levy, did he particularly pick the small companies to pay the heavier share?
This question—why the smaller companies have been chosen to bear the brunt and why the free slice has been reduced from £1½ million to £½ million—was posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills), for we want to know why the smaller companies, which enjoy only 5 per cent. of the total I.T.A. revenue, should pay 8 per cent. of the addition.
Are the sums which are being raised from the small companies—about £70,000 from Ulster Television—so vital to the economy? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that companies like Ulster Television are run with the greatest efficiency and public spirit? Ulster Television is still operating from a converted Victorian warehouse, although it has been turned into an extremely serviceable studio. This company has made no investment outside television and was hoping to extend its facilities this year into a proper studio. Indeed, it has plans to build a £1 million studio for colour transmission. Those


plans will have to be scrapped because of this levy.
I will not delay the House by giving many examples of the public spirit in which this company operates. One need only recall the success of Ulster Television's "Midnight Oil" programmes which were based on the Prime Minister's university of the air concept. I can think of no part of the United Kingdom which needs better communications more than Northern Ireland. I have no doubt that this claim can be made by many hon. Members who represent the more remote areas. It is no coincidence that a great many of the hon. Members taking part in this debate represent far flung parts of the nation. I trust that the Postmaster-General will explain why, by this levy, he has caned the small companies.

11.25 p.m.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: Our basic criticism is that this is an ill-judged, ill-timed and unjust increase of tax. Evidently the Postmaster-General thinks the same or he would not have added that extraordinary bit to the end of his speech that if the tax did not work he would alter it straight away.

Mr. Stonehouse: The hon. Member must appreciate that this is not a tax; it is a rental charge.

Mr. Gilmour: The right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. The Chancellor does not impost rental charges on companies in his Budget; he imposes taxes. He imposed a levy, not a rental charge in this tax. This is a tax and it comes at a time when the industry is going in for colour television. The colour revolution is upon us and the cost of production in colour will be at least £5 million extra a year. The increase in tax comes at a time when costs are rising by 7 per cent. a year and the incompetence of the Government makes it likely that the increase will get larger rather than less. It comes when advertising revenues, which admittedly have risen recently, are likely to decline. All this can hardly fail to have a considerable effect on the quality of programmes.

Mr. Christopher Mayhew: We keep hearing that lower profitability will mean lower quality of programmes. That implies that in the past the richer and more profitable companies

have made better programmes and the less profitable ones worse programmes. If that is so, may we have some evidence about it?

Mr. Gilmour: I am not saying that, but there comes a moment when profitability becomes low and the standard of programme will decline. In his Budget statement, the Chancellor pointed out that profits before tax in the last three years had averaged well over 40 per cent. of capital employed and commented:
In my view the community should have a bigger share in the value of these publicly created concessions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th April. 1969; Vol. 781, c. 1014.]
Evidently he was totally unaware that the entire situation had completely changed last July. If ever there were a case of looking up trains in last year's Bradshaw this was it. There could hardly be a greater example of Socialist planning in practice being totally oblivious of what everyone knew took place in the previous July. There had taken place last July the crucial creation of a fifth television major contracting company. That, as the Postmaster-General knows and evidently the Chancellor did not know, had totally altered the entire profitability of the major contracting companies. Since the creation of the fifth major contracting company, the return on capital has dropped to about half of what it was.
As a result of that creation and bringing in colour television, the profit of I.T.A. companies next year and the year after will be about £4 million. That has to be divided between 15 companies, with an average return on capital employed of below 10 per cent. Under a Socialist Government that is a good deal less than an investor can get by investing in Government stock. What is worse, under the unfortunate new proportions of the levy, regional companies will be particularly badly hit. My local company, Anglia, will have to pay about £100,000 more. I feel able to comment on this because on the last Bill I moved an Amendment designed to help smaller companies which under this provision will be heavily clobbered. We already have the absurd situation that Yorkshire Television is likely to pay a levy of about £2 million and make about £100,000 profit. Its profit is so low that it has to enter into conversations with Anglia Television. Incidentally, the hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. Edward


Lyons) was wrong in saying that Anglia and Yorkshire are not contiguous.
If the Government were by their measures to force independent television to lose its regional character and force the regional companies to combine anal to lean ever more heavily upon the major contractors, it would be a very retrograde step, not only from the point of view of television, but also from the point of vew of the future of regionalism.
It would have been the minimum of elementary prudence for the Government to have waited to see the effects of the new fifth contractor and of the introduction of colour before stepping in with a new and heavy imposition. This is the same in reverse as when the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced pension increases in his Budget before deciding how they were to be paid for. Then the Chancellor announced the increases without having any idea how to pay for them. Here he announced the increased tax without having any idea how it would be paid or what effect it would have on those who will have to pay it or what effect it would have upon the programme content of independent television.
As hon. Members on both sides have said, this new tax—it is a tax, I repeat—cannot fail, first to hurt programme content, and, secondly, to hurt the smaller regional companies. This is both irresponsible and stupid, and it is for these reasons that we shall vote against the tax tonight.

11.32 p.m.

Mr. Robert Cooke: As the Postmaster-General does not seem to want to rise, I intervene briefly to say that practically every hon. Member on this side tonight came here to put in a plea for the plight of the small regional companies. The Postmaster-General would do well to direct himself to this particularly vital problem. It is the smaller companies with their special character which will be in grave difficulty if he continues with the formula contained in the Order. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will look particularly at this point and perhaps amend the Order sooner than he had otherwise planned.

11.33 p.m.

Mr. Stonehouse: With the leave of the House, Mr. Speaker, I speak again. This has been an interesting if short debate.

It demonstrates the paucity of the Opposition's case against the Order that they attempted to drive an artificial wedge between my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and myself. I am as fully associated with this as he is, and I do not believe that it will have the dire effects on the programme companies that has been suggested in some speeches. If I had thought that for one moment I would not be standing at the Despatch Box tonight.
I agree fully with the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) about the quality of programmes being produced and their great potential in export. Already several independent T.V. companies are securing orders running into millions of £s in sales abroad, and we pay tribute to them. Now several of them have already had public tribute paid to them—in particular, A.T.V. has received the Queen's Award; we applaud it for that—for their success in the export field. We wish this to continue. I do not believe for one moment that the increase which is being suggested in the Order will have the effect of reducing the incentive that exists in these programme companies to produce the best possible quality of programme which will appeal to sales abroad as well as exhibition here at home. I do not believe that that case has been made out.
Much has been said about the effect on the smaller programme contractors. I follow the observations of several hon. Members and pay tribute to the job which they are doing in difficult circumstances. As has been said, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, East (Mr. Edward Lyons), these companies have small programme areas, so that they are unable to deploy the resources which some of the big contractors can deploy. But they do an incredibly good job in the circumstances. The programme company in Ulster is another example. I endorse what has been said about them, and we do not want them to be adversely affected or prevented from carrying on this extremely valuable activity in developing regional programmes.
Nevertheless, the House must remember that these smaller companies, the four smaller companies, have each made 40 per cent. return on investment in the last three years. The hon. Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Ian Gilmour) and


his hon. Friend the Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan) both said that the programme contractors had been somewhat changed. That certainly does not apply to the smaller ones. They are the same companies which enjoyed a fine return—not a small return, I think the House will agree—on their investment in past years. Therefore, they should have been able to build up some reserve to enable them to meet the problems of colour, for instance, which they knew would come at about this time.

Mr. Henry Clark: Would the right hon. Gentleman seriously suggest that investment in Ulster Television, even in the original days, was in any way more favourable than investment in any reasonable industrial share of the same period?

Mr. Stonehouse: Yes, I think I could. But I do not think that the programme companies can judge their results on any one particular year. This year—it remains to be seen—may not be so good, but I have said that if the estimates of the programme companies turn out to be as they have said to me they expect them to be, I shall reconsider the position. But I do not expect that it will be nearly as bad at the end of the year when we know what the results are. We shall be able to adjust the position in due course.
A case has not been made out against this rather minimal increase in the rate of return. I emphasise to the hon. Member for Norfolk, Central that it is not a tax in the normal sense of the term. It is a levy which is equivalent to a rent charged for a public community-provided facility. I see the hon. Member for Howden seeking to intervene. That was the principle accepted by his right hon. and hon. Friends when the original Act was introduced in 1963, and they cannot dispute it now.

Mr. Bryan: But does a rent go up and down in this fashion?

Mr. Stonehouse: It is appropriate that the community should expect to receive a fair return for this facility which is provided to the programme companies. The hon. Member for Peterborough said that the television companies were providing a massive contribution to the Exchequer, either through the levy or through taxation. I do not dispute that. The question

is: is it a fair contribution? It may be a large one, but is it fair? We say from this side of the House that, in all the circumstances, it is a fair contribution which the programme companies, given the experience of the last three or four years, should be expected to pay.
The hon. Member for Howden made one of his typical speeches. He seems to forget all the history of this affair. He sheds crocodile tears over the I.T.V. companies and complains about the increase which we are asking the House to approve tonight. It is an increase of £3 million on £26 million, or under 12 per cent. The Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported in 1963 abolished the Television advertisement duty, which had an annual yield of £11 million, and introduced the levy, which produced an annual return on the same income of some £18 million, which was an increase of over 50 per cent. The House will remember the anguished cries of the television companies in that year. They said what a dire effect the levy would have on them. In the event, it was not as serious as was suggested. Since then, the programme companies have been able to produce some excellent programmes, and the hon. Member for Peterborough was right in saying that they have exported them all round the world.
Although there may be some real fears sincerely held in the programme companies and in some parts of the House about this increase of £3 million, an increase of under 12 per cent. is not likely to have the dire effects suggested. Certainly any effects are not likely to be anything like the impact of the 50 per cent. increase in 1963.
My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins), the hon. Member for Peterborough and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar) said that the most equitable way of raising the money would be by a tax on profits rather than a levy which, in a sense, is a rental charge. I do not agree, for the same reason that Conservative Ministers in 1963 and 1964 would not have agreed with them. A tax on profits would be subject to evasion. Quite apart from the problems of identifying what they amount to in this context, there is also the danger that the programme companies would set up subsidiaries to produce programmes for them which would


charge excessively for their services and so limit the actual profits of the I.T.V. companies, so avoiding the incidence of taxation which it is the general wish of the House that they should have—

Sir Harmar Nicholls: rose—

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot at this stage debate other forms of taxation. Mr. Jenkins.

Mr. Jenkins: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that there is such a thing as certified programme expenditure less certified programme costs? It would be possible to find a half-way house between the two possibilities, as regards programme expenditure and certified profits.

Mr. Stonehouse: I was asked whether I would consider ways and means of changing this form of imposition. I

undertake to keep these ideas under review. But I do not believe that a case has been made out against the Order. The programme companies have made extremely high returns on their investment in past years. They have been able to produce some extremely good programmes, despite the high amount that they have had to pay. I believe that they are fully able to meet the additional £3 million now proposed, without the adverse effects which have been suggested.

If their estimates of reduced profits in this year are realised, I undertake to reconsider the position in association with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. I hope that the House will feel that this is a fair and reasonable position to adopt and that it will support the Order.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 242, Noes 173.

Division No. 267.]
AYES
[11.44 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Hszell, Bert


Albu, Austen
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Henig, Stanley


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret


Alldritt, Walter
Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Hilton, W. S.


Anderson, Donald
Delargy, Hugh
Hooley, Frank


Archer, Peter
Dell, Edmund
Horner, John


Ashley, Jack
Dempsey, James
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Dewar, Donald
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Hoy, James


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Dickens, James
Huckfield, Leslie


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Dobson, Ray
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Dunn, James A.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Barnett, Joel
Dunnett, Jack
Hynd, John


Baxter, William
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)


Bence, Cyril
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh;


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Ellis, John
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Bishop, E. S.
English, Michael
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Blackburn, F.
Ennals, David
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Ensor, David
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Booth, Albert
Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)
Judd, Frank


Boston, Terence
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Kelley, Richard


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Faulds, Andrew
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)


Boyden, James
Fernyhough, E.
Lawson, George


Bradley, Tom
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Leadbitter, Ted


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)


Brooks, Edwin
Foley, Maurice
Lee, John (Reading)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Lestor, Miss Joan


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Ford, Ben
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Forrester, John
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Buchan, Norman
Gardner, Tony
Lomas, Kenneth


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Gordon walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Luard, Evan



Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Gregory, Arnold
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
McBride, Neil


Cant, R. B.
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
McCann, John


Carmichael, Neil
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
MacColl, James


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Macdonald, A. H.


Concannon, J. D.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
McGuire, Michael


Conlan, Bernard
Hamling, William
McKay, Mre. Margaret


Crawshaw, Richard
Hannan, William
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Harper, Joseph
Mackie, John


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mackintosh, John P.


Dalyell, Tam
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Haseldine, Norman
McNamara, J. Kevin


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Hattersley, Roy
MacPherson, Malcolm




Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Spriggs, Leslie


Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Storehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Paget, R. T.
Taverne, Dick


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Manuel, Archie
Park, Trevor
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Mapp, Charles
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Tinn, James


Marks, Kenneth
Pavitt, Laurence
Tomney, Frank


Marquand, David
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Tuck, Raphael


Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Urwin, T. W.


Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Pentland, Norman
Varley, Eric G.


Mayhew, Christopher
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Mendelson, John
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Wallace, George


Millan, Bruce
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Probert, Arthur
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Rankin, John
Weitzman, David


Moonman, Eric
Rees, Merlyn
Wellbeloved, James


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Richard, Ivor
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Whitaker, Ben


Morris, Charles R. (Openshawe)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy
Whitlock, William


Morris, John (Aberavon)
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Moyle, Roland
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Neal, Harold
Roebuck, Roy
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Newens, Stan
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Norwood, Christopher
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Wilson, William (Coventry. S.)


Oakes, Gordon
Sheldon, Robert
Winnick, David


Ogden, Eric
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


O'Malley, Brian
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Woof, Robert


Oram, Albert E.
Silver-man, Julius



Orbach, Maurice
Skeffington, Arthur
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Orme, Stanley
Slater, Joseph
Mr. Ernest G. Perry and


Oswald, Thomas
Small, William
Mr. Ernest Armstrong.




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Errington, Sir Eric
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Eyre, Reginald
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)


Astor, John
Farr, John
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Awdry, Daniel
Fisher, Nigel
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Maddan, Martin


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Fortescue, Tim
Maginnis, John E.


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Foster, Sir John
Marten, Neil


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Gibson-Watt, David
Maude, Angus


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Mawby, Ray


Biffen, John
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Biggs-Davison, John
Glover, Sir Douglas
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Blaker, Peter
Glyn, Sir Richard
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Gower, Raymond
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Body, Richard
Grant, Anthony
Monro, Hector


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Gurden, Harold
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Braine, Bernard
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Brewis, John
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Murton, Oscar


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hastings, Stephen
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hawkins, Paul
Neave, Airey


Bryan, Paul
Hay, John
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Heseltine, Michael
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Higgins, Terence L.
Nott, John


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hiley, Joseph
Onslow, Cranley


Burden, F. A.
Hill, J. E. B.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Holland, Philip
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Carlisle, Mark
Hordern, Peter
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hornby, Richard
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Chataway, Christopher
Howell, David (Guildford)
Pardoe, John


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hunt, John
Percival, Ian


Clark, Henry
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Clegg, Walter
Iremonger, T. L.
Pounder, Rafton


Cooke, Robert
Irvine, Bryant Codman (Rye)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Price, David (Eastleigh)




Prior, J. M. L.


Corfield, F. V.
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Pym, Francis


Crouch, David
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Crowder, F. P.
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Currie, G. B. H.
Kershaw, Anthony
Royle, Anthony


Dance, James
Kimball, Marcus
Russell, Sir Ronald


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Scott, Nicholas


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Kitson, Timothy
Scott-Hopkins, James


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Lambton, Viscount
Sharples, Richard


Doughty, Charles
Lane, David
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Drayson, G. B.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Silvester, Frederick


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Sinclair, Sir George


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'ne-upon-Tyne, N.)
Longden, Gilbert
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Emery, Peter
MacArthur, Ian
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)







Speed, Keith
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Woodnutt, Mark


Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Walters, Dennis
Wright, Esmond


Summers, Sir Spencer
Ward, Dame Irene
Wylie, N. R.


Tapsell, Peter
Weatherill, Bernard
Younger, Hn. George


Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Wells, John (Maidstone)



Temple, John M.
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Wiggin, A. W.
Mr. Humphrey Atkins and


van Straubenzee, W. R.
Williams, Donald (Dudley)
Mr. Jasper More.


Waddington, David
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Resolved,
That the Television Act 1964 (Additional Payments) Order 1969, a draft of which was laid before this House on 21st April, be approved.

COUNTY COURT JUDGES

11.55 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Arthur Irvine): I beg to move,
That the County Court Judges (Maximum Number) Order, 1969, a draft of which was laid before this House on 15th May, be approved.
The maximum number of county court judges, which was fixed at 80 by Section 4(1) of the County Courts Act, 1959, was increased to 90 by Section 5(2) of the Administration of Justice Act, 1964, and increased to 97 by Section 1(1) of the Administration of Justice Act, 1968. Section 1(2) and (3) of the Act of 1968 enables this number to be further increased by Order in Council, provided that a draft of the Order is laid before Parliament and approved by Resolution of each House.
The purpose of the Order is to increase from 97 to 105 the maximum number of county court judges authorised by the Act of 1968. The work of the county courts has increased so rapidly during the last year that it has been necessary to increase the number of county court judges to the authorised maximum number of 97. This number, however, includes one county court judge who, at the earnest request of the Government of Uganda, has been seconded for two years from March 1969 to the High Court Bench of Uganda to assist that country at a stage of its development when the Government of Uganda were anxious to have the benefit of an experienced English judge. The cost of the salary of the judge seconded to the High Court of Uganda is met partly by the Government of Uganda and partly by the Ministry of Overseas Development.
In spite of this increase in the number of county court judges, it was necessary

to appoint members of the Bar and retired judges to sit as deputy judges on 1,000 occasions in 1968 to relieve congestion in the courts. This compared with 811 appointments in 1967 and 587 in 1966.
The business of the county courts continues to increase, and this, together with the need to reduce the number of occasions on which deputies are appointed, makes a further increase in the maximum number of judges authorised by Parliament unavoidable. The county court judges, with the assistance of deputy judges, disposed of 29,888 county court actions and 36,778 divorce petitions in 1966; 32,567 county court actions and 42,298 divorce petitions in 1967; and 33,978 county court actions and 45,527 divorce petitions in 1968. The latest information from the county courts indicates that this trend is continuing, and the House will observe that these figures reveal a steady increase in the volume of business.
In the last few years it has been my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor's policy to use the county court judges to an increasing extent as deputy chairmen of Greater London Sessions as well as Commissioners in the Crown Courts of Liverpool and Manchester, and many county court judges sit in rotation at these courts. This work, in effect, now occupies the time of ten judges, six in London and four in Lancashire. It is only in these areas that there is statutory provision for the recovery of the judges' salaries from the local authorities who are responsible for their remuneration. The appointment of deputies from time to time is inevitable, but their appointment on the scale which I have indicated cannot be justified. Furthermore, it is not easy to find well qualified members of the Bar to sit as deputies and their appointment on so many occasions in 1968, when the number of occasions was a thousand, involved a great deal of administrative work.
A study of the trends in county court and divorce business suggests that the


increase in both classes of business is still continuing at a fairly steady rate and that some increase in the number of judges would be needed during the next two years if delays, or the appointment of more deputy judges, are to be avoided. In proposing that the authorised number of judges should be increased from 97 to 105, my noble Friend has taken into account this trend in county court and divorce business, and the effects, so far as they can be predicted, of increasing the county court jurisdiction under the Administration of Justice Bill now before Parliament from £500 to £750 in the general jurisdiction and, coupled with that, the relief which will be given to the county court judges by increasing the registrars' jurisdiction.
The Lord Chancellor also has in mind that, if the Divorce Reform Bill now before Parliament is passed, its provisions will add somewhat to the work of the judges; but, on the other hand, when effect is given to the recommendations of the Payne Committee on the Enforcement of Judgment Debts, there should be a useful reduction in the county court judges' work.
It is always hard to predict the course of judicial business, and, in fact, complete figures for the work of the courts during 1967 were not available when it was decided that the maximum number should be fixed at 97 by the Act of 1968. It was not apparent until after the passing of that Act that the county court and divorce business was increasing so rapidly, nor that the maximum authorised number of posts would be filled so soon.
The Lord Chancellor has given most careful consideration to this question and, having regard to the considerations I have outlined, has come to the conclusion that it is reasonable and best to fix the number at 105. Having given this background, I commend the Order to the House.

12.3 a.m.

Mr. Ian Percival: We welcome what is proposed in this Order, and it may be that we shall receive substantial and sophisticated advice as to how we can now arrange our system for the determination of cases and, in particular, how we can ensure speedier

determination of them. One thing which is always clear in this kind of discussion is that if there is an insufficient number of judges to do the work there must follow avoidable delays. The increased pressure of work in the county courts requires an increased number of judges, and with that we agree.
Our one slight concern is that this modest increase by eight may already have been overtaken by events. Is eight really enough to remedy the difficulties? It may be overtaken, and overtaken very quickly, as a result of the operation of the Bills to which the learned Solicitor-General has referred. The passage of those two Bills may well result not only in there being an additional number of cases but more substantial cases which could well make much greater demands upon the judges' time.
I therefore express the hope that the Lord Chancellor will not hesitate to use to the full, and at an early date, the powers given by the Order or to come forward with proposals for a further increase in the number if it is found that this increase does not meet the situation. I mean no discourtesy or criticism in what I say; but it is very easy, by being too careful in this sphere, to be overtaken by events and always to be behind them. For instance, if it was still found necessary to use deputies on any substantial scale after the Order has been implemented, we would hope that the Lord Chancellor would not hesitate to take further action, because he could rest assured of our support. In particular, we hope that he will not be deterred by the Treasury from so doing. I am glad to see the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. It may be that there are attractions in meeting the situation by the method which involves the least cost; but that approach should be adopted with extreme caution in this sphere.
We all respect the deputies and the work done by them, but we should all agree—and I am happy to infer from what the Solicitor-General said that this is his view—that it is wrong, so far as concerns the deputies themselves and the public, to use deputies, save to meet particular temporary situations. We feel that it can never be an extravagance in our society to provide the necessary number of judges. It is a false economy not to do so. Accordingly, we welcome the


Order and hope that full and speedy use will be made of the powers which it confers.

12.7 a.m.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: I wish to speak briefly in support of what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) has said about the danger that in the Order we may not be making adequate provision for the excessive duties that we are putting on county court judges.
The Solicitor-General has told us that the Order increases overall the number by eight. Taking some of the other figures given to us by the hon. and learned Gentleman, I understand that in 1968 there were 1,000 judge days, if that is the right phrase, on which deputies sat in the county court.
Speaking for myself, in an area where the county court has helped to staff the Crown Courts of Manchester and Liverpool, the increase in the number of deputies is becoming alarming. It is no disrespect to one's friends at the bar, who sit from time to time as deputies, to say that we have reached a stage where it is becoming almost a day to day occurrence rather than an exceptional occasion when a deputy sits.
Taking the Solicitor-General's figure of 1,000 judge days, assuming the county court sits for 40 weeks a year, five days a week, which I think is about right, it means that the time of five judges is taken up in merely meeting the demand for deputies over the previous year. I wonder what provision or what thought the Solicitor-General has given to the increase in the amount of work that the raising of the limit to £750 will make. My feeling is that it will make a substantial difference. One cannot say that the kind of cases now going into the county court will mean a reduction of judgments debts. A case involving £600 or £700 is likely to be fought out and take a considerable time. Even the increase from £400 to £500 meant more lengthy cases in the county court. The same comment applies to the potential increases which the Solicitor-General sees with the rate of divorce.
Rather than have an almost annual Order to increase the number of county court judges, I hope the Solicitor-General is satisfied that this Order means that he will not have to come back in a few

months' time to increase the number yet again. Whilst an increase of this kind is necessary, I fear that the maximum number will rapidly be met, and there will not be the necessary allowance for further work.
As has been said, in the county courts we get justice on the cheap. Those who are critical of judges should realise that it is the cheapest form of justice that it is possible to get, and that any provision for a few extra county court judges is a very small price for the country to pay for the provision of speedy justice in the county courts.

12.11 a.m.

Mr. Edward Lyons: I agree with many of the remarks of the hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle). When judges are necessary they should be appointed, and it is fair to say that the more one has the quicker litigants have their cases tried.
What concerns me is the piecemeal nature of the Government's policy about appointments. Last year we were here with the Administration of Justice Bill. We were told that there would be seven new county court judges, but it was not expected that they would all be appointed at once. Here we are a year later with another eight on the stocks. I wonder to what extent the Government are engaging in forward planning or in an analysis of the situation in the county courts to see what the long-term situation will be.
Are the Government considering, too, what view they take about specialisation? For example, many county court judges act in the criminal courts as well, and I suppose one way to save extra county court judge appointments is to ensure that county court judges stick to their county courts. I am not suggesting that county court judges are not able criminal tribunals. Indeed, the county court judge of Leeds, Judge McKee, is not only an exceedingly able county court judge, but also a very able and humane chairman of the West Riding Sessions at Wakefield. Nonetheless, there may be an argument, contrary to the prevalent fashionable belief in legal circles, that civil judges should stick to civil cases and criminal judges to criminal cases.
That leads me to the question of deputies. In criminal matters we have


no objection to part-time assistant recorders and deputy chairmen. We say that this is good because it enables them to get judicial experience, and therefore it is not wholly a bad thing that barristers should from time to time do a little part-time work as deputy county court judges to familiarise themselves with the mysteries of judgment summonses, and so on. I argue that it is not very serious if to some extent deputies are used. Nonetheless, I agree that there comes a time when deputies are used too much, and then more judges are required.
I agree that the Divorce Reform Bill, when it becomes law, will require more judge time, and that therefore more judges will be necessary to cope with it, but this will be for only about two years. The Divorce Reform Bill is really copied from Australian and New Zealand practice, and their experience was that there was a big rush for divorces for two years when all the people who had not been able to get divorces were at last able to get them, and thereafter things went back to normal. So I hope that the Government do not believe that it needs a great many judges to cope with a permanent flood, because this is not so.
I hope that they will also give some thought to the way in which they select the new county court judges. The Lord Chancellor's Department chooses judges after consulting High Court judges, Queen's Counsel and leaders of circuits. County court judges should operate locally. The normal practice—at any rate in the north-east—is to choose them from barristers practising in the area of the county court. If a few junior counsel were consulted, better county court judges might be selected. Queen's Counsel and High Court judges are often out of touch with the needs of a region and the peculiar qualities required of a county court judge can often best be considered and decided by his brother junior counsel using courts in the area. So I hope that, in all future judicial appointments, the Lord Chancellor of the day will consider consulting junior counsel as well. We might get a better judiciary as a result.
I agree that the pressure on the judiciary makes these extra judges necessary. I only hope that, in a year's time,

we will not be here again at this time of night, dealing with a further demand. Have the Government considered what the Beeching Report will have to say? If it says that county court judges should have much more to do with trying criminal cases, eight new judges will be nothing at all. On the other hand, if it says that no county court judge should deal with a criminal case, we may not need these extra eight. Have the Government seen the Report? Are these recommendations based upon their consideration of it? Perhaps the Solicitor-General will tell us about that.

12.18 a.m.

Sir Eric Errington: I speak as one who at one time was a deputy county court judge. Anyone who has studies these matters will agree that there is considerable need for an adequate number of judges. I do not entirely agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Percival). There has been a nice friendly discussion, in which everyone seems to agree, and I am anxious that this matter should be looked into with great care.
That does not mean that I am necessarily against this proposal. The whole question of county court circuits should be considered in the light of the changed population and the changed degree of work. I feel in something of a vacuum, because we do not have the information about this. Before one can give a clear judgment about this, one wants to be certain that all county court judges are pulling their weight in the administration of justice.
I am aware, as I practise in Liverpool, that the Liverpool and district county court judges are of inestimable value to the Crown Court. Indeed, I doubt whether that court would be able to achieve its present disposal of criminal business if it were not for the county court judges who sit assisting the recorder. However, this does not seem a satisfactory arrangement. If the needs of the criminal administration of justice are such, it does not seem right that the matter should be dealt with by the appointment of appropriate members of the Bar to assist the recorder. However, rather than say that the county court judges are misemployed, I suggest that they are not employed for their original purpose.
Generally speaking, it is undesirable to have deputies because it is not satisfactory to have serving somebody who is not really a county court judge. We should, therefore, if it is necessary, have as many judges as are appropriate. I am concerned about this because I suggest that the time has come when the whole question of the amount of work that must be handled should be considered. In some cases there is too much work and in others there is not enough. This matter must be clarified if we are to get the administration of justice correct.
I do not agree with the idea of what are colloquially called "floaters", who are not tied to a special court but who go round to the various courts as and when they are needed. I would like to think that one of the effects of this Instrument will be that that system will not be continued or, at any rate, that it will be continued only under absolutely necessary conditions.
The points I have made make me have some doubt about the Instrument. However, it is obvious that everybody agrees that it is necessary. I wish that I could agree in connection with the points that I have raised.

12.24 a.m.

The Solicitor-General: With the leave of the House, I will deal with some of the points that have been raised. I am grateful to hon. Members for their observations and I assure them that their remarks will receive very careful attention.
We are dealing here with an extremely important jurisdiction and it is of the greatest importance that the work of the county court should be deployed so as to achieve the maximum advantage. I paid special regard to the extremely helpful observations in this connection of the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington). Hon. Members have tended to doubt whether the figure of 105 is sufficient. I can only assure the House that my noble Friend has given the most careful consideration to this question. Having regard to the considerations I outlined earlier, he has come to the conclusion that it would be reasonable and best to fix the number at 105.
Of course, there is a certain amount of elaboration in the factors that led to a

conclusion as to what the best number is. There are the counter-poising factors I mentioned which are illustrated by having the Divorce Reform Bill proposals with the likelihood that they will mean some additional work for county court judges, to be balanced against the effects of the recommendations of the Payne Committee on the Enforcement of Judgment Debts which go the other way. These illustrate the elaboration which arises in determining a question of this kind, and they are circumstances which my noble Friend has had most carefully in mind. The number was arrived at after most careful consideration.
I heard what my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, East (Mr. Edward Lyons) said about the danger of this matter being treated piecemeal, as he expressed it. He was quite right to point to the danger that attaches to that kind of approach, but I conceive that that is a potential criticism which does not apply in this instance and I ask the House in all the circumstances to give approval to the Order.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the County Court Judges (Maximum Number) Order 1969, a draft of which was laid before this House on 15th May, be approved.

WAYS AND MEANS

POWER OF TREASURY TO BORROW

Resolved,
That it is expedient to authorise the raising of money under section 12 of the National Loans Act 1968 through, or through a department of, any savings bank maintained under a local Act.—[Mr. Harold Lever.]

WAYS AND MEANS

PREMIUMS ON LEASES (INCOME TAX AND CORPORATION TAX)

Resolved,
That it is expedient to amend the provisions of the Finance Act 1963 about premiums on leases and the duration of leases by legislation applying to leases granted after 12th June 1969 and, in certain cases, to leases granted on or before that date.—[Mr. Harold Lever.]

EMPLOYMENT (NORTH-EAST REGION)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McBride.]

11.27 p.m.

Mr. R. W. Elliott: I am grateful to have the opportunity to raise the important subject of unemployment in the North-East of England. On 12th May this year 64,858 persons in the Northern Region were unemployed. This represents 4·7 per cent. of our employable population and twice the national average of unemployed.
In certain parts of the region—I quote Sunderland as a particularly bad black spot—the rate is extremely high, 12 per cent. of the male population being unemployed. The latest figures available to me give the deplorable information that of the boys in the region who left school at Christmas 15·1 per cent. are still without employment. That represents a very real social problem. It is also deplorable that 10·2 per cent. of those unemployed in the region are men of 55 to 59. No one can over-estimate the seriousness for a man of 55 to be unemployed. He is far too young to have finished his working life and far too old easily to find new employment.
I am glad to see in his place the Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity, who is also the Member for Jarrow, right in the heart of the region I am talking about. He is well qualified to understand the region, as I know he does. I look forward to hearing his remarks. I should have been very pleased to see in their places some of his colleagues from the region. I should have been gratified also if the Minister responsible for the North-East had seen fit to have been here to listen to the very serious story which I have to tell.
I am particularly gratified to see in his place my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph). It is extremely good of him to be in his place at this time of night. I know that he is constantly concerned about employment in the country generally and is constantly asking me about employment and unemployment in the North-East in particular. Also in her place, as always when the subject of the North-East is

raised in any context, is my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), who may seek to catch your eye in due course, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I hope that the Under-Secretary will not tell the old story which a stream of Ministers who have recently come to the North-East have been telling. They tell this story in all sincerity and with some pride. They talk of the extra footage of factory space which has come into being in the last few years. They talk of the great works which are going on in road building and on other constructional work. We are aware that there has been substantial injection in recent years. We are aware of the increase in factory footage. However this does not and should not allow members of the Government to escape from the realisation that our unemployment remains depressingly high and that we are as an area apparently running ever faster but standing still.
We get a steady stream of visiting Ministers to the North-East. We are always delighted to see them and always hope that our lot will be improved by their presence. A short time ago it was calculated that they were arriving in the Region at the rate of two and a half per week. During the weekend, just to keep up this average, we had a visit from two. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, the hon. Lady the Member for Exeter (Mrs. Gwyneth Dun-woody), to whose speech I listened with close interest—she spoke extremely well—asked that we should not be too depressed by unemployment and should not allow it to blind us to what was going on. We are not blinded but we are very aware of our unemployment. The Lord President of the Council, addressing the Northumberland Miners' Gala at Bridlington, struck what I suppose he thought was an optimistic note when he said, "We have today a new type of unemployment in this country". He got a very good, sharp and hard reply immediately from a miner in his audience, as those of us who know the North country knew that he would. The miner shouted, "Yes, but it is still unemployment, even if you call it a new type of unemployment".
I wish to make these points on our deplorable problem. First, I ask the Under-Secretary to realise that, however much Ministers eulogise on what is being


done in the North-East, it is not enough. Secondly, there is considerable doubt in the Region about the effectiveness of some of the aid being given to us. Thirdly, it is high time that hard facts were faced and something done to alleviate the position. The unemployed of our region must have shuddered when they read in one Sunday newspaper yesterday that it is estimated fairly accurately by some students of our economy that we might well have 100,000 more unemployed by the end of the year. If there are 100,000 more unemployed in the country as a whole, it bodes ill for the North-East. In putting my appeal to the Government to face hard facts, I cannot do better than quote from the current issue of the journal of the Tyneside Chamber of Commerce:
The fact is—and events are proving it—that the political and economic priorities were wrong, and wrong from the start. This is not a matter of political prejudice; it is a matter of results, and the score up to new endorses it.
The editorial in the journal is very appropriately entitled,
Only the score counts.
Indeed, it does.
The priorities were wrong, in the opinion of many of us, from the beginning of the Labour Party's tenure of office. My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth and many others of us warned time and again that the development area jam was being spread far too thinly. But when we used to say that at the beginning of the Labour Government's life, how we were shouted down by hon. Members opposite. We were told that the Conservative Party did not know how to plan. We were told that coming with the new Labour Government was the Department of Economic Affairs, and arising from that Department there would be the economic planning councils which were to cure all our ills.
I shall not in this short debate dwell on the subject of the economic planning councils, but, if they are to cure all our ills, it is high time that they began to do something about them. With the greatest respect to them, although they have presented us with a lot of statistical information, some of which we knew and some of which, possibly, we did not, the results of their efforts are difficult to see.
Taxation has been crippling to the nation. It hurts the development areas in many ways extremely badly. There is no better example of present and future taxation of the type which will hurt employment in the North-East than what is to happen to the employer's and employee's National Insurance stamp. Five years ago, the joint stamp cost 36s. 8d. In November this year, it will be £5 6s. 3d. Does anyone imagine that that fantastic increase helps our employment position?
Now, I make my appeal for action to help the region in what may well be the dying months of this Government. First, let no part of the £20 million to be taken from the development areas for the grey areas come from the North-East. We cannot spare any of it. This is not being parochial. It is said in fear, and very real fear, that this Government will get their priorities wrong again. We have no confidence in the North-East that they will get them right. One of the Hunt Committee's recommendations was that the grey areas should have this additional money. We have no quarrel with that. But the Hunt Committee also recommended that there should be a descheduling of areas which had overcome their major problems, and it recommended the descheduling of Merseyside. I do not state blandly that Merseyside should be descheduled, but I do say firmly—For goodness' sake let this assistance which the grey areas undoubtedly need come from areas which are overcoming or have overcome their problems. Let it not come from us. We need extra aid.
On the same principle, let us have concentration within the development areas on those places which need the greatest aid. This is what we have always said as a party. When the Labour Government took office and made the development areas great wide stretches of the country, covering in some instances areas which did not need extra aid under the development area legislation, we said that that was all very well provided that there was enough to go round. It is quite obvious that, due to the hopeless failure of the Government's major and basic economic policy, there is not enough to go round. So, in the dying months of this Government, let there be concentration of such aid as is available in those parts of the development areas, such as


Sunderland and the North-East, where it is very badly needed at present. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will say a word about the possibility of extra development area status for Sunderland and other parts of the North-East Region, where the unemployment rate is extremely worrying.
Thirdly, let there be urgent inquiry into the effectiveness of the regional employment premium. We were told that it would bring quick results, and we waited to see. Again, it is very doubtful whether R.E.P. has brought quick results. But the major point that I wish to make about it is that, in the North of England, there is considerable doubt expressed in the ranks of industry as to the effectiveness of the large amount of money being poured into the region through these means.
Fourthly, will the Government face up, even at this late stage, to the harmful effects of S.E.T. on development areas? The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade was told when she attended the North-East Development Council meeting in Newcastle on Friday that S.E.T. already had cost the region 12,000 jobs in the service industries. She appeared to be genuinely interested in the figure, and wanted details. This is a very distinct figure of the number of jobs lost in the service industries, arrived at after careful research by N.E.D.C. How many more will we lose in the service industries, in a region where the unemployment rate is twice the national average, when the S.E.T. increase has its full effect? S.E.T. is a nonsense. It is a ridiculous tax. It has hurt our region very badly.
Lastly, will the Government face the problem of unskilled workers? It is estimated, again by the North-East Development Council research team, that almost half our unemployed men at this time are without skill. I know that the Under-Secretary will say, quite correctly, that the number of training places in the Northern Region has increased substantially in the past few years. It has needed to do so. But again I would appeal to him for an inquiry into the use of our training centres and the types of courses engendered there. I appealed to his right hon. Friend in January of this year for an inquiry to be started in

the ranks of the new industrialists who have come to the area to make sure that they were getting from our training centres the skills that they require. In my experience, this is not always so. We need an urgent review of skills in the Northern Region if we are to do something about older men especially who find themselves redundant in mid-life.
I hope that what I have said in this short debate will go home to the Under-Secretary of State. Even at this late stage, we need some real action for the good of the North of England and its employment.

12.44 a.m.

Dame Irene Ward: I shall be very brief, because the case which has been put so admirably by my hon. Friend has raised a number of questions which have to be answered by the Under-Secretary.
My hon. Friend referred to all the Ministers who have visited the North-East recently. The Prime Minister was there only the other day. He enjoys making observations and dictating policy to every Minister over whom he presides. The Prime Minister has been touring the shipyards and other places in the area hearing of our problems. I wonder whether he has impressed upon the appropriate Departments the need for action. I would like to know what results we will get from his tour.
Despite the fact that on the Tyne we have lots of shipbuilding orders, men are being discharged from Smith's Docks, in my constituency of Tyne-mouth, because there is no work for them. I understand that for some time the consortium has been pressing for assistance to establish a new dry dock to meet the increased size of tankers. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have just had the pleasure of having Princess Anne launch the biggest ship ever built in the country. What is happening? Has the Prime Minister given directions that we have to have this help?
Very sadly I heard today that, at short notice, Angus House, at North Shields, which for many years has served the British Sailors' Society and provided places for sailors entering the Tyne, is being closed down because there are so few ships entering the Tyne. This is a dreadful situation. I do not have time


to refer to the great anxiety about the port of the Tyne. We cannot get an answer about the iron ore shipments, about what will be done about the Tyne.
The Tyne is being run down, and we cannot get an answer out of the Government about how they will deal with the situation. They have moved some centres from Newcastle to York, they have done all sorts of things to denigrate the North. The Under-Secretary, with his experience and knowledge of the area, ought to stop this erosion and do what is necessary. I look forward to hearing the programme, which I am sure he will be able to give us.

12.47 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mr. E. Fernyhough): It will be impossible, in the few minutes left to me, to answer more than a few of the points raised. The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North (Mr. R. W. Elliott) knows that he has me over a barrel on this problem. He knows that I have lived with it for the 13 years that the previous Government was in power, and I have still got it. I can best answer some of his points by quoting from the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) who made speeches in January and February. In January he said in Glasgow:
There are several mistakes we made. First, we recognised too late the run down in the basic industries; secondly we kept taxation as a disincentive, and thirdly we did not do enough about communications.
He made a speech in similar vein in Sunderland. The problem we are dealing with is not one which has arisen since the Labour Government came into power. It is true that, without trying to make a party political point, no one recognised how quickly the run-down in the basic industries would take place. Over the last five years in the North-East we have lost, on average, 10,000 miners each year. We have lost between 5,000 and 6,000 men in marine engineering, railways, steel and so forth. It is the colossal run-down in these basic industries which has meant that we are having to run like a March Hare to stand still.
Anybody who pretended that nothing had been done, who pretended none of the Government's policies had worked, would be doing a disservice not only to the Government but to the North-East.

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady the Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward) would care to think for a moment what was the state of the shipbuilding industry when the Labour Government came in. I wonder whether, had we not done what we did for that industry, there would have been 12,000 men employed in it on the Tyne now.
I ask the hon. Lady and the hon. Gentleman to consider this: nobody suffers more than I do from the fluctuations in ship-repairing. I wish to goodness we could evolve some system whereby we could have ships coming in on a rota, but so long as we do not control the ships, so long are we unable to determine when they will come in. It is a very big problem to try to get a labour force steadily employed 50 weeks in a year in each of the various ship repair yards on the Tyne.
I acknowledge straight away that the figure of 64,000 which the hon. Gentleman mentioned is a very alarming one. Nobody is more conscious of it than I am, and nobody is more anxious to see it substantially reduced than I am, but I would have hoped, when the hon. Gentleman quoted Sunderland and the May figure, he would have taken into account that of that figure there were some 2,800 temporarily stopped because of a dispute. I acknowledge that Sunderland's unemployment figure is indefensible, but it was aggravated considerably in May by the fact that there were those 2,800 temporarily stopped. It made the total of 9,685. I am glad to tell the hon. Gentleman—I have had the figure got through today—that for this month it has dropped down to 6,673. I am not complacent about that. I am not complacent, either, about the 18,000 still unemployed on Tyneside, but there has been a reduction of 0·2 per cent. on the May figure. I acknowledge that more has to be done.
Let us look for a second or two at what has been done—in this last 12 months in particular. Since the beginning of 1960 some 240 manufacturing firms, new to the region, have set up factories in the Northern Region or have made the decision to do so. Northern Region's share of the Great Britain total of estimated additional employment arising from I.D.Cs. amounted to 13·1


per cent. in 1966, 16·1 per cent. in 1967, and 13·6 per cent. in 1968, whereas the region's proportion of employees in manufacturing industry is only 5·3 per cent. The hon. Gentleman will know that not so far from him is the Alcan smelter. At the moment it is employing 250 workers; it will build up a labour force of 2,000. Similarly, at Seaton Carew the labour force employed at the moment numbers 500, but it will build up to 2,400.
As for the over-50s, a fair proportion of those are miners. The hon. Gentleman knows what we have done in order to lighten their burden. This must be stressed. We acknowledged that, because of the changes which were necessary in British industry, there was bound to be transitional unemployment, but we have tried to lighten the cross of those who have been made unemployed as a result of what I would call the second industrial revolution. We have tried to lighten their cross by redundancy payments, by wage-related benefits, and, in relation to miners themselves, for those aged 55 and over, by the nine-tenths take home pay. So it cannot be said that we are indifferent to the need for jobs or the hardships or indignities which those who are unemployed have to suffer.
I will give second place to no man in this House or in this country in my determination to try to resolve this problem, not only in the North-East but wherever it occurs. No society can call itself civilised if it stands idly by and sees young boys or adults rotting away without knowing the satisfaction of earning their living and the dignity and self-respect which come from that.
The hon. Gentleman also must do a little thinking. He asked me about the stamp. Does he agree pensions should be increased? Is he saying that pensions should be kept down to what they were five years ago? If he agrees that we

should put up pensions, will he tell me where the money is to come from if not from this source?

Sir Keith Joseph: Will the hon. Gentleman be sure before his time ends to answer my hon. Friend's questions about whether any of the £20 million for the grey areas will be coming from the North-East, and whether the Government are prepared to review the money going on the regional employment premium?

Mr. Fernyhough: The right hon. Gentleman is an old hand and knows full well that neither of those points concerns my Ministry. I will see that the points are put to the appropriate Minister. I had no chance to get from the hon. Gentleman information on the points that he would raise and, because of the limited time, I have sacrificed what I anticipated he might raise to deal with one or two issues.
I repeat, I am as genuinely concerned as the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady. Since January the figures have come down each month, and I hope that this trend will continue, so that eventually the position will be reached where no-one will need to raise the problem. I hope that we shall see the same measure of prosperity there as obtains in other areas, and an unemployment figure no higher than the national average. I assure the hon. Gentleman that as long as I am in this position I will not quibble when he raises this problem. I am at one with him in wanting to see it resolved so far as lies within my power and within the power of men and women who have sympathy for their fellow men and seek to help them.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to One o'clock.